Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SCOTLAND (REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS)

10.5 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the registration of teachers by the General Teaching Council and the draft Teachers (Education, Training and Registration) (Scotland) Regulations, published on 28th December last.
These draft Regulations, to be made under Section 7 of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act, 1965, prescribe the conditions governing the registration of teachers by the General Teaching Council; they repeat, without change of substance, the provisions which have hitherto applied to the certification of teachers, subject to modification, to enable men to be admitted, on the same footing as women, to the three-year college of education diploma course for primary school teachers.
As I announced on 23rd November last, I accepted the Council's view, based on a recommendation in the Report of the Wheatley Committee on the Teaching Profession in Scotland, that, both for existing certificated teachers and for new entrants, registration should be made a necessary condition of entitlement to permanent appointment by education authorities and to salary in accordance with prescribed scales. The draft Regulations, accordingly, also provide for the amendment of the Schools Code and the Salaries Regulations in this sense. The Council has made the necessary preparations to commence registration of teachers from 1st April.
I have received various representations on the draft Regulations from teachers' associations and individuals; and the Educational Institute of Scotland has in-

formed me that it cannot let me have its views on the draft Regulations until its local associations have considered the matter. In the circumstances, I have decided not to proceed meantime with the making of final Regulations.
I shall, therefore, have to continue to certificate teachers under the existing Regulations, the Teachers (Education, Training and Certification) (Scotland) Regulations, 1965. But I propose shortly to amend these Regulations to provide for the admission of men to the college of education diploma course and to make certain other adjustments in consequence of the winding up of the Scottish Council for the Training of Teachers on 31st March—adjustments rendered necessary by the decision not to proceed with the Registration Regulations meantime. In the circumstances of urgency I propose to make the amending Regulations as provisional Regulations, as provided by the Education (Scotland) Act, 1962.
I regret very much that this situation has arisen and that the General Teaching Council will not be able to proceed with registration from 1st April as it had envisaged. I should like to make it plain that the Council's other important activities will not be affected.

Mr. Noble: I thank the Secretary of State for making this announcement and I assure him that we on this side regret, probably as much as he, the lack of immediate support for the proposals of the Teaching Council. We agree that, in practice, at the moment, the course which he is taking is the only possible one. What is his idea of the present timetable? In his view, will there be any effect, due to these troubled moments which we hope will soon be over, on the number of teachers likely to come forward?

Mr. Ross: On the second point, I do not think that this will in any way affect the numbers of teachers coming forward. In relation to the timetable, the provisional Regulations can be introduced as a matter of urgency and are not subject to the usual delays of final Regulations.

Sir M. Galpern: What are the underlying reasons for the need which my hon. Friend has announced to delay the registration? Are uncertificated teachers


causing some of the difficulties which have led to the need for postponement?

Mr. Ross: I do not think that it is that at all. One of the good things about the Teaching Council is that it has got down to this issue; it has a working party on the problem of uncertificated teachers and it is making some progress. This has already been approved by the main body of teachers as a step forward. Therefore, I do not think that that is a difficulty. The Educational Institute of Scotland has asked for further time to consider the proposals for registration. We gave it further time, but it then decided that it would be better to make sure and consult its members, probably at the annual general meeting.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I associate myself with the view of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), that he is right to postpone these Regulations until he has received representations? On the question of admission of men to the college of education diploma course, what difference does he think this will make to the supply of teachers in Scotland? In particular, has he fully considered the many objections to this course?

Mr. Ross: There were not as many objections as the hon. Gentleman might imagine. In any case, that is not really related to this matter, on which I made a statement earlier and on which we had a debate. The Government decided that, in the circumstances, this was the right thing to do. As a matter of fact, this was supported by a considerable body of teachers, including two of the associations, and there has been little or no trouble about this since we made the announcement.

Mr. Dalyell: What will be the position in relation to the diploma this autumn? Can my right hon. Friend clarify the position?

Mr. Ross: It should make no difference at all.

Mr. Brewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a certain amount of anxiety in the teaching profession lest registration acts unfairly in some respects; that the existing rights of

certificated teachers may be affected, perhaps financially to the extent of the registration fee? Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure us on this matter?

Mr. Ross: It will not detrimentally affect teachers from the point of view of the amount they receive. This really arises out of the implications of the unanimous Report of the Wheatley Committee that we should proceed to registration. We could not have two systems running together, registration and certification. The fee, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a nominal £1 a year, which compares very favourably with the registration fees charged by other professions.

Mr. Rankin: Has my right hon. Friend visualised the possibility of the teachers rejecting the final Regulations? Has he considered what course he might pursue in that event?

Mr. Ross: I have thought about all the courses that might be pursued. My hon. Friend will appreciate that one of the reasons we have taken this step is to safeguard the position—but I would not be so rash or gloomy as to predict that we are doing anything other than merely holding the present Regulations in suspense.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many teachers already in service and accepted as qualified would regard as unreasonable any alteration in their terms of service? Will he bear this in mind and move carefully in respect of registration in future so that the confidence of these teachers is properly retained?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we debated this and similar matters fully when we considered the Measure. He will also appreciate that if we wish to proceed from a basis of direct rule by the Secretary of State to control by the Teaching Council, on which the profession has a considerable say in respect of qualifications, discipline and so on—matters which are vital to the profession and in which they want to participate—we must proceed on the basis of registration.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (NORTHUMBERLAND)

10.13 a.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement to the House on slaughtering procedure during last summer's outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Northumberland. A report, including a detailed examination of the allegations which have been made of cruelty in slaughtering on a number of farms, is available to hon. Members in the Library.
Foot-and-mouth disease was confirmed on 32 farms in Northumberland between 21st July and 5th September. In all, 5,753 cattle, 38,448 sheep and 714 pigs had to be killed. Northumberland was then heavily stocked with sheep and cattle out at grass. The county sends livestock over a wide area of Great Britain. Furthermore, the outbreaks were near to open grazing of the Cheviots with a very large sheep population.
In all these circumstances, there was a grave risk of spread of this most infectious of all animal diseases, not only locally but, as happened in a previous outbreak in Northumberland, to other parts of the country. Nevertheless, the outbreak was mastered.
Containment and eradication of the disease constituted an achievement which could never have been brought about without good organisation, prompt and efficient action, and unremitting hard work. Credit is due to the veterinary officers, to the farmers and farm workers, to the police, to the contractors and their men, and to the slaughtermen, all of whom gave invaluable service. Speed was the first essential, and this need was impressed on all concerned by senior veterinary officers from headquarters who visited the area. Sometimes large numbers of animals, particularly sheep, had to be slaughtered within a few hours and often late in the evening.
The substance of most of the allegations was that several shots of the captive bolt pistol were used on individual animals. It is true that this happened occasionally, but it does not mean that there was cruelty. When a humane killer is used the animal loses consciousness,

if it is not killed at the first shot; but a subsequent shot or shots are sometimes used to make sure that life is extinct or to stop reflex movements.
The ideal weapon would ensure not only unconsciousness but also death in every case at the first shot. Captive bolt pistols have been used for a long time, but in their present form they do not reach this ideal, especially when large numbers of sheep have to be slaughtered and where speed is essential and bleeding cannot be practised. I am going to consult with the R.S.P.C.A. and other authorities to see whether any improvements in the weapons or in the method of slaughter can be obtained.
It is possible that out of over 38,000 sheep slaughtered a few may have been accidentally suffocated. A worker at one farm has stated that after the slaughtering of sheep he found some still active and that he killed them with an iron stake. Such an observation of movement among the sheep does not mean that they were conscious or that any suffering occurred, but if the farm worker had reported what he found to the veterinary officer in charge, the latter would have used a humane killer if necessary. No such report was made, and the veterinary officer knows nothing of the incident.
My veterinary staff always examine the results of any large series of outbreaks to see what can be done to improve the organisation. This examination is being carried out now, but before reaching any conclusions as to the way in which slaughter organisation and other aspects of our operations could be improved, we have been waiting for the farmers' unions to discuss with us the suggestions which I understand they have received from the Northumberland County Branch. I understand that the unions will be ready for these discussions very shortly, and as soon as possible thereafter. I shall announce any consequent changes in our procedure.
I believe that in the report which I have placed in the Library I have covered all the allegations that have been made to me of cruelty during the slaughter of cattle and sheep which had to be carried out in Northumberland. I most emphatically repudiate these allegations, which are a gross aspersion on our veterinary officers whose training and very calling is opposed to cruelty to animals, and also on the


slaughtermen employed, who as a body carried out their formidable task with efficiency and despatch in extremely difficult conditions.

Mr. Godber: I thank the Minister for responding to the wishes expressed by my hon. Friends by making a statement on this matter. We are grateful for that. We shall, of course, want to study the Report which he has placed in the Library and we will do that with the greatest care before coming to any detailed conclusions about it. As a preliminary, however, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer a few questions arising out of his statement.
He said that the substance of most of the allegations was that several shots of the captive bolt pistol had to be used on a number of animals. I have not understood that to be the substance of the allegations made by my hon. Friends, and the right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, wish to enlighten us further about that. I understood that the allegations were more serious and I was, therefore, somewhat perturbed at the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the difficulties involved in the slaughtering of large numbers of sheep. I accept that those difficulties exist. At the same time, although he said that movement among sheep did not necessarily mean that they were still conscious or that any suffering had occured, I understood that it had been said that some of these sheep were moving 24 hours after they were supposed to have been slaughtered. That really cannot mean that there could not have been suffering, or that the animals would not have been conscious.
I am glad that the Minister is to have discussions with the N.F.U.s, and I hope that he will be able to tell us something more about that.
It is obvious that grave disquiet was caused here. I cannot say that I am happy at the statement. It seems to tend to brush aside some of the allegations that have been made without giving them adequate consideration. I would ask the Minister to give further thought to the points I have made.

Mr. Pearl: I certainly will. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is

back, and that he is much improved in health.
I had to deal with the captive bolt question, because it was raised. I have gone into great detail, and I believe that when the right hon. Gentleman reads the document now in the Library he will see that I have covered the allegations of suffocation, etc., and faulty organisation which could create cruelty. As to reflex actions, I am advised that after a sheep has been dealt with in the normal way it is possible for reflex actions to operate. In any case, I have stated what my own veterinary officer has reported, and this is in the narrative, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will read.
I am merely arguing that I have looked at every allegation of cruelty up to now very carefully, and the right hon. Gentleman will see that I have dealt with them fully in the longer statement, which I could not possibly have given orally to the House. I have responded to the desire expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and their hon. Friends, who pressed me to make an oral statement. I felt that it was right to do so, and I hope that hon. Members will now carefully read the full details I have published.

Viscount Lambton: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his report is shockingly casual and designedly confusing? When I raised the subject on 18th January I quoted certain evidence. Some of that evidence was given by a farm worker, Mr. Jobson, who alleged that one sheep had had to have its throat cut and that another had had to be banged with an iron stick to be killed. This is the evidence. The Minister has not been in contact with Mr. Jobson. Why?
On Monday, my agent in Northumberland contacted Mr. Jobson——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I sympathise with the noble Lord, but he cannot make a speech now.

Viscount Lambton: Then will the Minister say why, if the inquiry was to be complete, Mr. Jobson was not contacted?
I also gave the evidence of two farm workers at Dancing Hall Farm—Mr. Johnson and Mr. Young. Will the right


hon. Gentleman say why, if the inquiry was thorough, they were not contacted? I gave the evidence of Mr. Brown, and I have a letter from Mr. Brown saying that he was not contacted. How can the Minister say that his inquiry was thorough in any sense if neither he nor his Ministry actually contacted the people who gave the evidence?

Mr. Peart: The noble Lord has said that my report is casual. I hope that he will carefully read the statement which is now in the Library. Obviously, a statement to the House must be short and concise, but I have prepared a very full document, and I hope that he will read it.
The noble Lord asks whether I have been in touch with individuals who have been mentioned. I have asked my veterinary officers and staff; I have made inquiries, and I have looked at all the evidence the noble Lord has put to me. I believe that he has tried to make his case out of hearsay from certain individuals—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I am entitled to reply to the noble Lord. He has been indulging in tremendous publicity in this matter, and I believe that he has cast aspersions on men who have given tremendous service. I merely express to him the hope that he will carefully examine the evidence I have put forward. So far, the noble Lord has not himself produced any evidence to show that there has been mismanagement or tremendous cruelty in Northumberland. I assure him that even farmers who have now come out openly in Northumberland have said that he is exaggerating the position.

Mr. Wilkins: It is noteworthy that not one word of praise has come from the benches opposite for the work done by the Ministry of Agriculture and its officials in dealing with this outbreak. Can my right hon. Friend give the House any estimate of the cost to the country or the industry, or to both, resulting from the grossly exaggerated statements made by the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton)?

Mr. Peart: On the wider aspect of the cost of compensation, no. But I can give the estimated cost of the operation. I would say that in Northumberland the

estimated cost would be in the region of about £72,000. This was a very large outbreak, and I am glad that an hon. Member has paid tribute to the way we have succeeded in dealing with it. Indeed, one farmer from Northumberland, one marksman, has said that the way it was done was really a miracle.

Mr. Stodart: Is the Minister aware that my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lamb-ton) has raised a point of considerable substance by revealing that the Minister, in his anxiety to check the facts—and I am using the words he used to the House on 18th January last when he said:
… I would rather check the facts with those concerned …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 618.]
—has not taken statements from those who made the allegations, which is quite astonishing? How can a full inquiry possibly have been made without taking statements from those who have made allegations in the public Press of what happened?

Mr. Peart: We have made inquiries into what has been said by the noble Lord, and what he claims to be evidence that he has received. I have carefully looked into every matter. I assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) that if he looks carefully at the full document now in the Library he will see that I have adequately covered all the points raised. There is no attempt here to hide anything. I accept that inevitably—and I mean this, Mr. Speaker—where a large number of animals were involved and men had to work immediately, late at night or through the night, there were mishaps. I have said so, and it is in the report, but there was no deliberate cruelty.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Is the Minister aware that those people who were involved in the outbreak, most of whom I know, would fully agree with him that speed was essential? Does he appreciate, however, that most of those who were involved in the outbreak were dissatisfied with the adequacy of the penning and the type of instrument used for the killing—the captive bolt pistol? Hence, most of them will welcome his statement that he intends to consult the R.S.P.C.A.


about the possibility of a better instrument. Does the Minister realise that the speed would have been much greater if the penning had been adequate? How much longer does it take to drive live sheep into a pen where there are already dead sheep than into a pen which is clean and empty?

Mr. Peart: I deal specifically in the report with the case of penning where the gates were put up the wrong way; but remedial action was taken. When the hon. Gentleman considers the difficulties and the size of the operation, I am sure that he will appreciate that the contractors acted very speedily. I think that we should have further study of the captive bolt pistol, and that is why I am consulting the R.S.P.C.A. and other bodies. If we can improve matters there, it will be for the good. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said, and I believe that his views are very responsible.

Mr. Hazell: I congratulate the Minister upon his decision to consult the R.S.P.C.A. to see whether improved methods of slaughtering are possible. Was the method of slaughtering used in this outbreak similar to that used for many years in dealing with outbreaks of this nature?

Mr. Pearl: This is the method of slaughtering which has been adopted by the Ministry for a long period of time. It may be that we can devise something better. If hon. Gentlemen know of something better, I shall be delighted to consider their views. However, I am sure that I ought to consult bodies like the R.S.P.C.A.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Northumberland as a whole and, no doubt, a very much wider area would have much preferred an independent inquiry? Nothing that I have heard this morning about the controversy moves me from the idea that there ought to have been an independent inquiry. As the controversy is continuing, I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will see that the whole matter is sent to the Parliamentary Commissioner, when he is finally appointed?

Mr. Peart: I replied to the hon. Lady on that matter the other day——

Dame Irene Ward: The right hon. Gentleman did not.

Mr. Pearl: I did. The hon. Lady did not agree with my reply, but that is a different matter. I said that I thought that the Ombudsman was not a suitable person to deal with the matter. However, if the hon. Lady wishes to put it forward, she can do so, by all means. The reason why I rejected the concept of a public inquiry was that the noble Lord had made charges against officials and about mismanagement in another sphere and had also brought in the whole question of diagnosis. This has been dealt with. Now I am dealing with another charge which has been made, and I am merely saying what the Northumberland farmers feel. As was stated in the Northumberland Gazette of 10th February, farmers feel that the cruelty business is overdone and that some people, in the end, are getting rather tired of those who seek publicity out of it.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: We are all relieved to have the Minister's statement, because the question of an inquiry has been uppermost in the minds of most people. The Minister has told us that there is a full report available, and that may reveal other aspects which make an inquiry either more or less desirable. However, at this stage, we should wait until we have read that fuller report and reserve our position on the question of an inquiry. The other matter which should be stressed is the importance of containing any outbreak in the future at this time of the year, because of the very detrimental effects that this outbreak has had on the sheep sales, when there are so many sheep being removed from the hills to the lowlands. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind and that the Ministry, having learned a great deal from this outbreak, will take particular precaution in future to see that any other outbreak is contained.

Mr. Pearl: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said about looking at the document which I have placed in the Library. As he rightly says, that should be examined carefully. On his second point about the future organisation procedure, obviously the Department has, as it has in the past, learned much from the Northumberland incident. We are seeking to improve


the administration, and will continue to do so.

Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that I have had an opportunity to get the document from the Library, and I have looked through it quickly? He said a moment or two ago that he had looked into every aspect of the allegations. We heard this morning the suggestion from my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) that some parts of the allegations have not been investigated, and I have found no reference to them in the report. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he will quickly make arrangements for the people whom my noble Friend specified to be interviewed with a view to getting their evidence and seeing if there are not certain facts in the report which are not quite true?

Mr. Pearl: I know that the hon. Gentleman is in difficulty because he has only just seen the report. I would ask him to read it carefully. I have taken up all the allegations which have been made by the noble Lord. I asked him some time ago to give me precise information. Some of his information is based purely on hearsay evidence and statements by individuals. I have checked as far as possible, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen will bear that in mind when they read the report.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hawkins.

Viscount Lambton: Viscount Lambtonrose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not called the noble Lord. Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Hawkins: In my professional work, I have come in close contact with Ministry of Agriculture veterinary surgeons and, unfortunately, have had to take part. In any questions which I ask the Minister, I wish to stress that I have myself found the veterinary service of the greatest——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have questions.

Mr. Hawkins: What I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, was that in any questions that I put to the Minister, I do not want to detract from what I consider to be a very fine service. Will the Minister agree that a very deep probe into the questions which arise from this

outbreak must take place, and can he promise the House that he will use every endeavour to improve and make more humane slaughtering under these conditions? Can he promise the House that he will seek some improvement in relation to the spread of disease? Certain questions seem to need to be asked. For example, what stocks of humane killers are available to the Ministry in outbreaks such as this? These killers——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating. We are asking elucidatory questions on a statement. I must protect the business of the House. Mr. Peart.

Mr. Peart: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I agree that we must try if we can to improve the method of slaughtering. I have said that already. In relation to the spread of the disease, where we can improve methods of containment, we will look at them carefully. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to the veterinary profession.

Mr. Noble: May I ask the Minister to come back to the point which has been worrying hon. Members on both sides? My noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lamb-ton) has told the House that he gave the names and presumably the addresses of certain people who could give evidence to the Minister. The Minister said this morning that that was merely hearsay evidence, but that inevitably must be so in any matter raised by an hon. Member on behalf of a constituent, and it is none the worse for that. It does not remove any obligation from the Minister to have asked one of his officials to see these people, take their evidence and decide whether it was good or bad. The Minister has made no attempt to answer the question, but has tried to avoid it by various devious smokescreens.

Mr. Pearl: The right hon. Gentleman should not say that. I have been very frank with the House. I have looked into this carefully. The right hon. Gentleman has not read the report. I am surprised that someone whom I have always regarded as a responsible person should fall for some of the cheap tactics used by his noble Friend. I have looked into this carefully, and I beg right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, before making wild charges, to look at the report, which covers——

Viscount Lambton: Answer.

Mr. Pearl: I am answering, and the noble Lord should not be impatient. I ask the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) to look at the report which I have published.

Mr. Noble: I made no allegations at all. I merely said that my noble Friend had given the Minister certain evidence which he had received, or the names of people who had that evidence. I said that I thought the Minister, through his staff, should have interviewed those people to see whether their evidence was good or bad. There cannot be anything wrong in asking the Minister to do that. I said that the Minister should study the information which my noble Friend had made available to him before saying whether or not it was false.

Mr. Pearl: I have done that. Over and over again, I have been in touch with the noble Lord. He has written to me, and I have followed up all inquiries in relation to what he said. What the right hon. Member for Argyll said was that I was being devious. I ask him to withdraw that.

Viscount Lambton: The Minister said that he has followed up every inquiry. I have in my hand a statement from a farmer who made allegations which I presented to the House. He says:
I have had no interview with any Ministry of Agriculture official regarding any inquiry into last year's outbreaks.
Will the Minister say why?

Mr. Pearl: If something has not been done, I will certainly look into it. That is what I have always said. I am asking right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to examine the report which has been placed in the Library. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen feel that they would like more information, I shall be delighted to give it. I have always responded to the noble Lord's questions. Often he has come to me personally, and I have done my best to follow up any matters which he has raised.

Mr. Godber: I rise for only one further moment, because there is a clear dispute on the facts. The Minister will recall that right at the start I asked him for an independent inquiry. I have not yet read

the report and do not want to prejudge it, but surely, if there is a dispute on the facts—and there is a dispute on the facts—this is still the best way to settle the matter?

Mr. Peart: There is no dispute here on the facts. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to read the report carefully. I ask him to remember that the demand for a public inquiry was on other matters originally, which the noble Lord does not now repeat—for example, that we have intimidated people in the industry. The noble Lord has never proved that. He has never made his case on it. Now he has come to the cruelty business. I have examined this very carefully and I believe that we have done a good job here.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must leave it.

TERMINATION OF FEU DUTIES, MULTURES, AND LONG LEASES (SCOTLAND)

10.41 a.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill applicable to Scotland to enable vassals under a Feu Charter, occupiers of agricultural property liable for the payment of multures, and lessees or sub-lessees occupying residential property under certain long leases, to commute their financial obligations; and for purposes connected therewith.
In asking the leave of the House to bring in this Bill, I wish to make it clear that my main reason for doing so is that we on the Liberal bench, and, I believe, many other hon. Members in other parts of the House, consider that the feudal system is not only a relic of an outdated social system, but that it is one of the three main obstacles to development in Scotland.
The other two major obstacles to development are the lack of capital investment and the poor system of communications, but these are hardly matters for a Ten-Minute Rule Bill.
I realise that this is not the first attempt to introduce a Bill to terminate feu duties. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie)—I am sorry that he is not here this morning—was successful on 22nd June, 1965, but


Parliament was prorogued before his Bill could make any progress. In his speech the hon. Member for Rutherglen ably outlined the history of the feudal system.
It is sufficient for me to say that the origins of the system are lost in the mists of time. Originally the Sovereign was the owner of all the land. Land was granted to vassals in return for goods or services—military services; agricultural service; or part of the crop, perhaps. In the Guthrie Report of 1952, the Sovereign is said to be the
paramount superior of all feudal land in Scotland
while the "proprietor" who is the same as a "vassal" under the feudal system, is defined as
the person holding the estate at the lowest point in the vertical chain.
To quote from paragraph 10 of the much more recent Halliday Report:
The technical language of the system, perpetuated from an earlier era, has marked psychological disadvantages today. The terms 'feudal', 'superior' and 'vassal' and the obligation to make payment of 'feuduty' in perpetuity all tend to suggest to a proprietor
or vassal
that his status is inferior. It is evident that the use of those archaic terms detracts from a sense of full ownership and is a disadvantage of the system.
Incidentally, my Motion to introduce this Bill was put down before the publication of the Halliday Report.
Apart from being an anachronism in a property-owning democracy, and an immense complication in the legislation relating to conveyancing, the feudal system provides a "second planning permission", which may or may not be wisely used. I would like to illustrate these points with three actual examples from my own experience.
First, a lady who owned an unlicensed hotel on the main street of a well-known tourist town in Scotland was told that she would have no difficulty in getting a licence. On the strength of this information, she unwisely carried out some expensive improvements to her property, applied for the licence, and got it. However, her "feudal superior" objected and used his powers under the law to have the licence revoked. He objected, not because he was a teetotaller or had religious scruples, but because he was a director of, and principal share-

holder in, the very large hotel which was—and as far as I know still is—the only licensed hotel on the main street of that town.
Secondly, a blacksmith wished to expand his premises into a light engineering works to serve the farming community over a wide rural area. He is one of the efficient ones who has survived the fierce competition of the age of farm mechanisation. He had even had the plans prepared and had been informed by the Board of Trade that the extension would be eligible for grant. However, the feudal superior, which was in this case a trust, withheld permission on the grounds of amenity.
Thirdly, a man bought one eighth of an acre and built a house on it, under the false impression that the land was freehold. Having built the house, he discovered that there was a feu to pay and sought to purchase it. He came to terms, only to discover that the man he had bargained with was only the "mid-superior". A wrangle then started between the superior and mid-superior as to who was entitled to the cash for redemption of the feu. One wanted approximately ten times as much as the other one. I am glad to say that in this case the less greedy "superior" won, and the proprietor now has the freehold of his little property.
Perhaps these three cases from real life will serve to illustrate just how anachronistic the system is. I have no intention of becoming entangled in the provisions of the Conveyancing Acts and Acts relating to entails, but it is broadly true that there is no limit to the number of times land can be "fued" and "subfued" again and again, with iniquitous effect on planning and development.
I will refer only briefly to multures and long leases. Multures are "mill dues", payable for the use of a mill, which, in every case what I have been able to discover, no longer exists— or, if it does, it no longer performs the service for which the multure was the fee.
As for long leases, as long ago as 1914 the Scottish Liberal Land Enquiry Committee, referring to them, said:
… as this system of tenure is not very common in Scotland it is felt to be the more unreasonable where it in fact obtains. There are instances where industry has been handicapped …


It went on to recommend powers for the conversion of long leases into feus—a recommendation which was not finally enacted until 1954.
But the Long Leases (Scotland) Act, 1954. which gave opportunity for tenants to convert to feu charter, merely helped to perpetuate the system.
It is sometimes argued in favour of the feudal system that it makes building land, and therefore houses, cheaper by spreading the financial burden, but in fact, houses are dearer in Scotland, a fact which was referred to only yesterday by the Minister of State, Scottish Office. In any case, a house purchaser can obtain the same advantage by using a building society or insurance company.
Long leases or ground leases mostly arose in the first place from prohibitions against "sub-infeudation", but the iniquity of the system is that any improvements carried out by the tenant, and usually the house itself, revert to the landlord at the end of the long lease, without any compensation to the tenant.
The time has now come for a further step towards the systematic termination of these burdens and injustices, and I am proposing that for the purposes of this Bill both multures and ground rents should be treated as feu duties. I am not suggesting their abolition without compensation, except that I agree with Halliday's recommendation that
from and after the date to be prescribed, all continuing payments of feu duty and ground annual which do not exceed 5s. gross per annum should cease to be payable.
Obviously feu duties of this value are just a nuisance to "vassal" and "superior" alike. But there would be an injustice in simply abolishing feus altogether. There are certain insurance companies, for example, which have made a practice of purchasing feus as a form of investment, so that the money of third parties is involved.
What I am proposing is that within five years of the enactment of this Bill all feus, multures, and long leases with over 21 years still to run, should be terminated, but that, until the five years have expired, the proprietor, mid-superior, or vassal, should be entitled to allocation of a feu duty if appropriate;

and that in any case he should be entitled, in his option, to redeem any feu duty, allocated part of a feu duty, multure, or eligible ground annual, at any term of Whitsun or Martinmas, after one month's written notice.
Whilst I have read the recommendations of the Halliday Report and am broadly in agreement with many of them, if all the recommendations of the Report are enacted the feudal system will merely be perpetuated. Nor am I happy about the recommended financial basis for redemption.
I am proposing that if the "proprietor" has not taken advantage of his right of redemption within the specified period —and I am suggesting five years, in line with the Guthrie Committee's recommendation regarding ground lease—the feu should automatically terminate, and that the local authority should, in effect, become the temporary "superior". Former feudal superiors and mid-superiors would submit claims for compensation to the appropriate local authority. Relevant feudal conditions should remain at the discretion of the local authority, with a right of appeal to the sheriff by those affected.
Whichever way the feu duty is redeemed, before or after the statutory termination date, I propose that the basis for redemption should be to treat the feu duty, multure or ground rent as the interest at current Bank Rate on the capital sum payable as compensation, the effective date being any term of Whitsun or Martinmas after one month's written notice, or the terminal date of the five year period during which redemption was optional, whichever comes first.
The local authority could pay the compensation either in a lump sum, if capital was available, or as an annuity on a sound actuarial basis spread over a number of years. I propose that the cost of compensation should then be recovered from the proprietor or former vassal, at the discretion of the local authority, by an appropriate supplement on the rates of the property concerned. This would have certain outstanding advantages. Unlike the recommendations of the Halliday Report, my proposals would in due course terminate feu duties once and for all time, and I believe that they are simple enough to confound even the most devious lawyer.


To summarise: First, there would be opportunity for voluntary redemption within a specified period; the amount of compensation would be calculated by treating the feu duty as interest at current Bank Rate on a capital sum. Second, at the end of the specified period of five years, there would be automatic termination, with compensation by the local authority financed by means of a supplement on the rates. Third, planning permission would come to rest with the statutory authority, which would be responsible to the community through its elected representative. It would no longer depend on the whim of a feudal superior who may be good or bad, wise or unwise, but who is answerable to no one for his decisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Davidson, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, and Mr. David Steel.

TERMINATION OF FEU DUTIES, MULTURES, AND LONG LEASES (SCOTLAND)

Bill applicable to Scotland to enable vassals under a Feu Charter, occupiers of agricultural property liable for the payment of multures, and lessees or sublessees occupying residential property under certain long leases, to commute their financial obligations; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 16th June, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

Orders of the Day — GENERAL RATE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Sir Dingle Foot.]

10.52 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I had hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General would introduce the Bill to the House, but my purpose in speaking is, in general, to praise the Bill because it is a very much needed Measure of consolidation.
As I wish to praise the Bill, may I dispose of one small complaint first? It is unfortunate that a print of the Bill was in the Vote Office only this morning at 9.30. It is true that hon. Members have had an opportunity to see the print of the Bill from another place, but that print was amended in the other place and we have not, therefore, had opportunity, except for half an hour before the House sat this morning, to see the Bill which we are now discussing. I hope that on other occasions we may have Bills a little earlier for consideration in the form in which we have to debate them.
If I may say so respectfully, I regard this as a splendid and much needed Measure of consolidation. I think it right to compliment the eminent Parliamentary draftsman by name, Mr. Elliston, who has produced such a valuable consolidation. He started his work of course, under the previous Conservative Government. The outcome is marred, perhaps, by only one or two blemishes, but I would not wish to prevent this Measure reaching the Statute Book before 1st April so that it may have effect for the following financial year. I imagine that it is the Government's intention to endeavour to have the Royal Assent to the Bill in time for it to apply for the coming local authority year commencing on 1st April.
First, as to the form in which it comes before the House, I am delighted to see that there is printed with the Bill a table of comparison showing the


derivation of the provisions in this consolidation Measure. We have asked in the House before that such a table of comparison should be printed with a Bill. I think that this is the first occasion on which it has been done in this form, and it is a great help, in studying the Bill, to be able to know where to find the old provisions as they appear in the new Measure.
The Bill is what we have come to call a pure consolidation Measure. I have never known quite what we meant by "pure", but it distinguishes such a Bill from a consolidation Measure which takes advantage of the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, that is, a consolidation Measure containing corrections and minor improvements. As the House knows, when a consolidation Bill is referred to the Joint Committee for the consideration of consolidation Measures, it may be referred as a Bill drafted merely for consolidation and not altering the law or it may be presented to the Joint Committee with a memorandum from the Lord Chancellor proposing certain corrections and minor improvements. In the latter case, that is, following the procedure under the 1949 Act, the Joint Committee will first consider the memorandum from the Lord Chancellor and, if it accepts the Lord Chancellor's proposals to amend the law, correcting it or making minor improvements, we in this House have to accept the result as the law and can no longer question it. But there is in that procedure the advantage that the Committee is able to make minor improvements to the law.
I think it regrettable that that procedure was not adopted in this case. The Bill is pure consolidation and not one in respect of which there was a previous memorandum from the Lord Chancellor and previous consideration of the law and amendments where necessary by the Joint Committee. I think it regrettable for two reasons. One, because a certain desirable correction or minor amendment could have been made, but the Joint Committee felt that on pure consolidation it was not justified in making it. I refer here to Clause 110. Second, something has been included in the Bill which, in my submission, ought not to have been included except upon

acceptance of a Lord Chancellor's memorandum; that is to say, it should have been recommended by the Lord Chancellor first. I refer here to Clause 117(1) and Part II of Schedule 14 which deals with the consolidation of Statutory Instruments.
These are two important constitutional points and, if I can keep in order in referring to them, I think it right to call the attention of the House to them. I think that 1 can keep in order, because the question is whether the law should be consolidated in this state without first going through the procedure provided by the 1949 Act and amending it so that the consolidation takes an adequate form.
I wish, first, to deal with Clause 110, concerning the Minister's powers to order inquiries. It says:
The Minister may direct any inquiries to be held by his inspectors which he might have directed to be so held under section 61(1) of the Rating and Valuation Act 1925 if this Act had not been passed.
That therefore keeps alive an old Statute when the intention is obviously to repeal that Act and embody it in this consolidation Measure. Indeed, the whole of the Bill embodies the 1925 Act, yet in Clause 110 it keeps the Act alive to the extent that anyone considering——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is straying from the very narrow and tortuous line he must follow. He cannot discuss the merits of Clauses.

Mr. Page: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to discuss the merits but to question whether the words satisfactorily consolidate the law.
I hope that I am entitled to refer to the deliberations of the Joint Committee on the Clause and to say that I understand from its Report that, as originally drafted, the Clause dealt with inquiries which the Minister might hold "for the purposes of this Act". Those words came from the 1925 Act, and therefore the phrase referred to that 1925 Act. When transferred to the Bill they referred to the whole contents of the Bill. The Joint Committee felt that that was going too far on pure consolidation and it therefore had to preserve the reference to the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. That is a great pity. I think that I can question whether the law should be consolidated now when the step could have been


taken by the procedure under the 1949 Act to put the law right in that respect before consolidation.
My second point concerns Clause 117(1). Incidentally, I notice that Clause 117(2) states:
The following enactments, namely, the Rating (Interim Relief) Act 1964 and section 47 of this Act, are hereby repealed …
I do not think that I have ever come across in a Bill a repeal of an earlier Section by a later Section. It seems a rather peculiar form, but I merely comment on that in passing.
I want to deal with the second part of Clause 117(1) which says:
… and the instruments or parts of instruments specified in Part II of that Schedule are hereby revoked.
The Joint Committee called attention to that in its Report. After reporting that:
The Committee have made certain amendments which seem to them necessary to the improvement of the form of the Bill and to bring the Bill into conformity with the existing law.
it said:
The Bill reproduces the provisions of and in consequence revokes, the whole or part of seven statutory instruments. The Committee are still satisfied that the instruments or parts of instruments in question do no more than make textual amendments to the Acts consolidated, the inclusion of which is necessary for a proper consolidation of those Acts.
I have not previously come across the justification in a Report from the Joint Committee that the amendments were merely textual amendments. I find no such phrase in the powers given to the Committee under the 1949 Act or anywhere else. I wonder what is meant by that when one sees from the Committee's Report that one example of a textual amendment was that a statutory instrument altered the figure in a Statute of 1962 from £25 million to £47 million.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is now getting on to the merits of the Bill which, in accordance with rulings given by a number of my predecessors, cannot be debated on Second Reading. All that we can debate is whether the law should be consolidated.

Mr. Page: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not dealing with the Clause's merits. I was trying to interpret the Committee's Report to the effect that it has made certain amendments in the

law which it describes as textual amendments. I was trying to see from its Report exactly what it meant by that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that we can do that on Second Reading. Where we have a Report from the Committee saying that the Bill is pure consolidation we are limited on Second Reading to debating whether or not the law should be consolidated.

Mr. Page: If I may direct my remarks to that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my contention is, as I have contended on previous consolidation Bills which have consolidated Statutory Instruments, that the consolidation should not take place until those Statutory Instruments have been given the force of statutory law by a separate Bill before this House.
A Statutory Instrument is always subject to question in the courts; its validity can always be questioned on the grounds that the Minister did not have the power to make the Order. The courts can set aside a Statutory Instrument on the grounds that the Minister exceeded his powers in making the Order. Therefore, whenever a Statutory Instrument is consolidated into a Statute there is a substantial change in the law because there is a change in the rights of the citizen to question that delegated legislation. It is no longer delegated legislation but becomes part of a Statute, the validity of which cannot be questioned in the courts.
My argument on Clause 117 is that such a substantial change in the law and the rights of the citizen should have been done by the procedure under the 1949 Act, that is, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. The precedent for that is the National Insurance Bill, a pure consolidation Measure, when the point was first raised with such force. It has occurred in later Bills, particularly the New Towns Bill, which was not a pure consolidation Measure but a Measure under the 1949 Act procedure. The 1949 Act procedure should have been adopted for the consolidation Measure before us, and to that extent I think that I am entitled to say that the consolidation should not take place until the law has been substantially altered in respect of the Statutory Instruments by the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.


My final, perhaps minor, point is to question what we are consolidating, which again concerns Clause 117. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell the House what is meant by two paragraphs of Clause 117(5). The Clause says:
Subject as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, nothing therein contained shall affect—
(a) the principles on which hereditaments are to be valued or any privilege or any provision for the making of a valuation on any exceptional principle;…".
It seems to me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going out of order. Once we permit hon. Members on Second Reading to address themselves to the contents of a consolidation Bill, discuss its terms, and ask Ministers what it means, the door is opened to a wide range of discussion which is quite out of order on a consolidation Measure.

Mr. Page: I accept your guidance and ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my question was aimed in this case not at the merits of the Clause but to try to ascertain what is left out of consolidation and therefore directly on the point of whether the Bill should be before the House now without taking into account other matters which should be consolidated. Supposing there were some 20 enactments on one particular subject and there came before the House a consolidation Measure dealing with only 10 of them. We would be entitled to ask why only 10 were included and whether it was right for us to consolidate without the others.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may make that point in a sentence, but one certainly could not discuss the contents of these enactments, whether being consolidated or not. The rule has been laid down quite expressly over and over again that it is out of order on Second Reading of a consolidation Bill to examine any of the contents of the Bills being consolidated. All that can be discussed is whether they should be consolidated or not.

Mr. Page: I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in one sentence ask what we are leaving out of consolidation in Clause 117(5,a and d). These are the points that I wished to put before the House in connection with the Bill which, I repeat, is a very welcome consolidation

of Statutes covering 366 years. The Measure, to the general practitioner in this subject as well as to the public in general, will be of the greatest use.

11.13 a.m.

Mr. James Allason: It is a matter of regret to traditionalists that the Bill should set about repealing an Act of Queen Elizabeth I —the Poor Relief Act, 1601. It is of course, to many people the Poor Law and something to be got rid of, but to me it is the Poor Relief Act and means that since the days of Queen Elizabeth I the relief of the poor has been a matter of concern to this House, and I am proud of that. It is sad to see the Act go. Nevertheless, it is preserved in Clause 16, the wording of which derives from the Act of 1601.
The wording refers to lands and houses to be rated. Land in fact includes houses, so it is completely unnecessary to have the word "houses" and I take it that it is included purely in order to preserve the traditions of 1601. Shops and offices are also included, as are houses, in "lands", under the Interpretation Act, 1889.
Although the Bill contains provisions regarding valuation, it does not contain provisions as regards water rates and other forms of rates beyond the general rate, which seems a little odd. It is some regret to me, because I dislike the procedure under which some water rates are levied by percentage whilst all general rates are levied by poundage. This means that there is a great deal of annoyance if one wants to work out what rates were two or three years ago without the actual rate demand before one. One has to work out both the percentage and the poundage, carrying out two separate sums whereas otherwise one sum would do.
Though I realise that this is purely a consolidation Measure without any amendment and therefore that it would have been necessary to have a separate Bill for water rates for the system to be altered as I would like, at least we now have a comprehensive statement on general rates and valuation. As a past member of a local valuation panel I appreciate this because it can be a nightmare trying to determine just what the


law is in the more difficult aspects of rating.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: This is an important Measure which deals with rates and one would have thought that it was of great importance and interest generally to the House. I notice, however, that all the speeches have come from this side of the House while there is no one on the back benches opposite. Local elections are coming up, but hon. Members opposite are so little interested in rates that they have not the interest to come here today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can only address himself to the question of whether the law should be consolidated in this Bill or not.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I notice that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) has come in, but the fact is that, this being a consolidation matter dealing with general rates, I would have thought that it was worthy of attendance in view of the local elections coming up.

Dr. David Owen: I point out to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) that I have been in the Chamber this morning for much longer than he has. He himself has just come in.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): I join the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in the welcome he has given to the Bill. As he says, it represents a very considerable achievement in consolidation. I also join him in the thanks he expressed to Mr. Elliston and his colleagues for the immense amount of labour which must have gone into the preparation of this Measure. As has been pointed out, the Bill goes back to the days of Queen Elizabeth I, and no fewer than 35 Statutes are enumerated, parts of which are consolidated in the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman also pointed out —taking some credit to his party—that the draftsmen must have started work on the Bill under the previous Government. That may well be so, but, with the general quickening of all political and administrative processes since October, 1964, their work must have been

greatly speeded up under the present Administration.
The hon. Member always raises the point—I make no complaint—about whether we should have pure consolidation, consolidation with amendments or amendment of the substantive law before we consolidate. He is probably aware that the Bill follows the Local Government Act, 1966. It was originally intended that the Bill should be accompanied by a Memorandum under the 1949 Act, but the opportunity was taken when that Act was before Parliament to make the Amendments required in the substantive law, so that it is now possible to proceed with a pure consolidation Measure. lb/>
The hon. Member particularly mentioned Clause 110. What he wants could not have been done under the 1949 Act. I cannot pursue that any further without transgressing the rules of order. He also referred to Clause 117 and Part 2 of the Schedule. They represent no changes in the law requiring a Memorandum——

Mr. Graham Page: This is the very point which I was questioning. The hon. and learned Gentleman says quite baldly that it does not need a Memorandum but there is what might be called an improvement in the law by altering the effect of a Statutory Instrument—not its merits or what it contains, but its effect. We ought to record the fact and decide that that ought to be done through the 1949 procedure of the Lord Chancellor's Memorandum.

The Solicitor-General: No, I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that these Sections in the law reproduce the law as it is. He made a somewhat separate point about Statutory Instruments being embodied in legislation. I take the point and appreciate what he says about the challengeability of Statutory Instruments in the courts, but Statutory Instruments have formed part of the law for a considerable period, which no one has challenged up to now.
We are not depriving the citizen of a right of any value when we consolidate the whole of the law. Of course, consolidation is a matter of general convenience——

Mr. Page: I am sorry to interrupt again. The hon. and learned Gentleman


said that there have been Statutory Instruments as part of the law for a very long time, but in Part II of Schedule 14 the last two references are to 1965 and 1966.

The Solicitor-General: But even in those cases, there would have been ample time for anyone to challenge them, and no one has done so.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) felt somewhat nostalgic about the 1601 Act. I entirely share his feelings but this is, of course, a Consolidation Bill. Section 1 of the Poor Relief Act of 1601 is still the rock on which the whole structure of occupier's liability rests and the broad categories specified in that Section reappear in Section 22 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, which is reproduced in Clause 19. That is the basic provision about valuation.
The hon. Gentleman's point was considered by the draftsmen, but they reluctantly concluded that if we attempted to bring the broad categories of the 1601 Act more into line with the more detailed classification of hereditaments in later Acts, we would run the risk of effecting some change in the substance of the law. I hope that that meets the hon. Gentleman's point.
I cannot take up all the points raised without transgressing your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you have ruled, the only issue before us at this stage is whether it is expedient that the law should be consolidated. I think that there is complete agreement on its desirability and that we all broadly welcome the Measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARIES (PLYMOUTH)

11.25 a.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Plymouth Order, 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1583), dated 16th December, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd December, be annulled.
This is the end of a long tragedy for many thousands of my constituents who will regret that the two principal villains of the piece, the present Leader of the House and the present Minister of Housing, are not here to witness the final act.
The purpose of the Order is to transfer to the city of Plymouth about 34,000 people who at the moment live within the Plympton Rural District Council in Devon. Probably the most substantial argument which we would advance against the proposal is that, at the moment, a Royal Commission is considering local government and its recasting. It seems to us that this is not the moment to undertake a change of this kind.
I quote the Prime Minister in support of what I say. On 24th May, 1966, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Gilmour), who asked:
Since the Royal Commission may possibly recommend far-reaching changes, is it not plain that no piecemeal and footling boundary changes should take place in the interval?".
the Prime Minister replied:
I believe that we can make some useful changes on the basis, for example, of past Reports by the Boundary Commissions, but on the big issues of principle it would be better to await the reports of the Commissions. The work of the Royal Commissions will not stop all work on boundary changes in the interim. Where such changes are justified on merit, they will be carried out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 294.]
This change has been examined on no fewer than two occasions by the Boundary Commissions, which on both occasions considered that the case for the adjustment had been made out, and twice rejected Plymouth's request to take over these areas. If the Prime Minister's words have any meaning, they should be used in this case to hold up this proposal until after the findings of the Royal Commission.
Our second reason, obviously, is the feelings of the people in these areas. I would agree with the Ministry's view that a change which affects local government is likely to meet some local opposition. This is natural. People who have lived in a certain local government framework get used to it. They know the people and the way it works and there is a certain natural reluctance to change. I would agree, also, that in many cases that is not an argument for not changing.
But there is a case for looking at the depth of local feeling and discovering how widespread it is. It is rare that one has the opportunity to do this, because local opinion is not usually measured. In this case, however, it was measured by a referendum. Everyone knows the number of people likely to vote in any election and no one is more aware of figures of this sort than we in this House. On the occasion of this referendum, when the 20-odd thousand electors in this area were asked to vote on this issue, over 80 per cent, did so.
A turn-out of over 80 per cent. of the people eligible to vote is comparable with the General Election figure. Of that 80 per cent., more than 90 per cent. voted against the change. This is overwhelming testimony of the confidence which the local population has in its existing local government organisation and the feeling of the people about finding themselves incorporated in the City of Plymouth. It is a remarkable demonstration of popular feeling and one which the House cannot ignore.
One must next consider the effect of carving off this area from Plympton R.D.C. in the way it is proposed. It will be deprived of three-quarters of its population. It will be left with about 14,000 people, which means that a council which is today regarded as one of the most efficient and progressive in Devon will be truncated and left without any real opportunity of continuing the work which it has done so well for a great many years. It may not be able to afford the quality of staff which it has at present. It will not be able to have centralised control. It will be left without any real centres of population under its jurisdiction. Thus, Plympton Rural District Council will be more affected than any other local authority in the area.
Plymouth City itself will not greatly change. It is already large, with a population of more than 200,000 people. It will become a city with a population of about 250,000 people as a result of these proposals. Plympton Rural District Council however will change dramatically. It will be made smaller and, in the way of things nowadays, it will be less efficient. This is indeed a great tragedy.
The proposed change comes at a time when Devon County has already lost areas which are about to be incorporated in Torbay. Now the county is to lose another large area. With this in mind, it is reasonable to consider some of the proposals that have been advanced by the City of Plymouth to justify these proposals. The argument which is usually heard on these occasions is that there is a shortage of easily developable land within the city. At first flush one might have a certain sympathy for that view, but we have heard it all before.
In 1949 another extension of the city boundaries took place. Again, it was Plympton Rural District Council that suffered. On that occasion there was a transfer of a substantial acreage of land from Plympton Rural District Council in order to give the city of Plymouth sufficient land to develop. I understand that about 3,500 acres in and around the land that was transferred in 1949 remains undeveloped. This prevents one from having any sympathy with Plymouth's argument that it needs more land to develop.
Neither does that argument stand examination when one considers the land Plymouth City proposes to take over, for it is, in the main, already developed. Very large areas of it are developed housing and shopping centres, with high rateable values which have been developed by Devon County Council. It cannot be said, therefore, that Plymouth City will be getting much land to develop. I suggest that the city already has sufficient land to develop and that it has had it since 1949. It is a tragedy that the best efforts made by Devon County Council and Plympton Rural District Council over many years should be negatived with an excuse which does not stand examination.
Another heart-rending type of argument produced by the City of Plymouth


is that too many young people are moving out of the city into Plympton and Plymstock. One might have some sympathy for the city, but one must consider what moral justification one has for saying that people who have deliberately chosen to move out of Plymouth into Plympton and Plymstock should now be captured by these proposals and obliged to move back to Plymouth City—a place from which they have sought to escape. These people have obviously wanted to move out of Plymouth and it seems wrong that we should change the framework of local government merely to bring them back. So that, too, is not a coherent argument in favour of the change.
The suggestion was made that more industrial land should be available for development, but I understand that the city has withdrawn that argument, it having been pointed out that land is already available to the city for that purpose.
This all indicates that the city merely wants more power to govern more people in this area, more or less regardless of the strength of the arguments against its proposals. It is obvious that the city is prepared to throw any argument on to the table in an effort to play up its case. For example, the city has argued that it wishes to control the whole of the port area of Plymouth and to be able to landscape it. However, no proposal has been made to take over the land in the other port areas of Cornwall—and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) would probably have some strong things to say if such a proposal were made. So the city's argument about landscaping the port does not stand up to examination, either.
Plympton Rural District Council has made a real success of developing the area which we are now discussing. It has built up in Plymstock a town centre which is much used and greatly admired by the local inhabitants. It has drafted proposals for a new town centre for Plympton which, when completed, will greatly increase the amenities of the area. Despite this, the bureaucrats of Plymouth, with their power-hungry eyes, are looking with envy upon this area and want to bring it within the confines of the city to make the city more attractive. Instead, they could have done a better

job by concentrating on developing the land they already have, which might have resulted in their keeping people in the city instead of those people wanting to move out into the area controlled by Devon County Council and Plympton Rural District Council. They should not merely wait for those councils to make a success of developing their areas and then bring forward proposals of this kind to take them over. This is not the way to develop local government in this country.
There are many arguments in favour of the case being put by Devon County Council. For example, Plympton Rural District Council will be reduced in population to 14,000 people. I need not explain that that is simply not a sufficient population to create a viable local government organisation. It is not the sort of organisation that we should create, and nobody in his right mind would suggest the creation of such an area.
Devon County needs a base in the south-west of Devon and this base, logically, should be in the Plympton area. However, this base will find itself within the City of Plymouth. There is no other substantial urban centre in this area which Devon County can use as a base.
I have mentioned the overwhelming views of the local inhabitants. We in the House cannot ignore their wishes. They feel deeply and passionately about this matter. Hon. Members may have read in The Times how, yesterday afternoon, a number of my constituents came to London bringing with them 16,000 referendum cards to present to Parliament. I have one with me and I see that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North also has one. Those 16,000 votes were cast against this proposal, and feelings of this kind cannot be ignored.
What will be the financial repercussions if this change comes about for the people living in my constituency who will become part of Plymouth City? Plymouth City will hand over £90,000, spread over a five-year period, to the rural district to help it over this difficult period. What will happen to my constituents? We all know that the rates in Plymouth are very substantially higher than they are in the rural district. The figure is 1s. 7d. in the £ higher. Anybody faced with this administrative change, knowing that purely as a result the poundage will go up by


1s. 7d. in the £, is entitled to ask, "What extra am 1 getting for this very substantial extra expenditure in any year?". It is even more serious, because if the present administration had gone on there would have been a 2d. reduction in the rates by Devon County Council for this year. This further aggravates the situation.
I am told that as a method of financing the extra cost of running the area, there will be an increase of 9d. purely for the additional administrative costs. Therefore, my constituents are faced with the situation where they have lost the 2d. economy which they would have got if the local government situation had remained the same. They will have to pay an extra 9d. in the £ if they remain outside, in order to finance the extra costs necessary to run the new Plympton Rural District Council. Those of my constituents who go into Plymouth, over a period of time will find their rates increased by l s. 7d. in the £. The onus of responsibility is on the Government Front Bench to explain what is the attraction of this for the 30,000 people about to go into Plymouth City. Why should they be expected to tolerate this sort of change which will lead to very substantial rate increases if they will not enjoy any extra benefits in return?
There was the infamous letter from the then Minister of Housing, the present Leader of the House, in which he announced his decision to the local authorities concerned, explaining why he had decided to overrule the two reports of the Boundary Commission. He had various reasons for doing this, which he gave. He used the reason to which I have already referred—that the young people are moving out of Plymouth and therefore compulsorily they should be brought back again.
I do not think that stands up to investigation. They have decided to get out. That is their decision, and I do not think that we should redraw local government boundaries to bring them back. He referred to Plymouth being a freestanding city, which conjures up all sorts of wonderful images until one asks oneself, "What is a free-standing city?" The fact is that in this area we have three distinct communities, one on the west of the River Plym in Plymouth and, outside that, two separate communities,

namely, Plympton and Plymstock. They are not £ single community. People living in Plympton regard themselves as a separate community from those people who live in Plymstock. They live in one of those two communities and they regard themselves as being individual communities. This situation is very attractive to local people.
Therefore, it is simply not true to say that the change which we are discussing this morning will create one great community within this area. We will still have in the area three separate communities, or the best of all possible reasons that the land lying between Plympton and Plymstock is largely sharply rising hillside which cannot be developed, so it will remain as it is. This distinction between Plymouth and the areas of Plympton and Plymstock will remain, unless it is the Government's intention to do away with the river and the hill. We will have three distinct communities as we have today. It does not make sense to talk about a freestanding city, except in moments of rhetoric to cover the lack of solid arguments on behalf of this case.
There was then the most curious flight of fancy of the Minister in which he said that his proposals would make it possible to reach a settlement between the county and the city which, once arrived at, should make it possible for them to work together in amity for a long time to come. That is an attractive idea until one thinks about it and until one thinks about the 16,000 postcards which have reached the House and one wonders how those people will live together in amity.
Much more significant is my question: what about the Local Government Commission? We all know that the changes which are being discussed this morning are academic, because within a very short period of their being implemented they will cease to exist, and the whole job will have to be done again. We all know that the views of the Ministry of Housing are that local authorities in the region of 500,000 population should be created. Here we are setting up a local authority which at best will be only half that size.
I would be the first to say—and I would like to say t very loudly and clearly—that I would welcome a Measure redrawing all the local authorities areas in Devon


to create large viable areas once and for all. I would agree with it. I would like to get rid of the distinction between town and country which ceases today to have the meaning which it used to have. I would like to see a growth centre in South-West Devon, proud of its existence, viable, and rid of all the problems which have beset it for many years. But is this the way to get it, or the time to get it?
Everybody knows, with the exception of the then Minister of Housing, the present Leader of the House, responsible for this decision, that this is not the way to get this result. This is not the time to get this result, and this matter should have been shelved pending the findings of the Royal Commission which we all believe will lay a coherent and permanent basis for this area's development.
I should like to quote another argument which was put forward by the then Minister of Housing which is relevant to this question of local authorities being able to work together. I think that the House will be slightly surprised by the quotation. On 26th May, 1965, he said:
I may warn you of two solutions which I shall not take very seriously. The first is that we should simply accept the automatic expansion of the county borough, that when the built-up area expands the county borough should expand to the same extent. This leads to an impossible relationship between the urban area and its surrounding countryside, if the countryside lives under the threat of constant aggression, ratified decennially by decree of a Boundary Commission.
This is precisely the situation which he has described so vividly and which he has now, in the case of the Plymouth Order, ratified in the way that I do not believe is justified.
It is precisely this about which my local constituents are so concerned. They have worked for a long time to build up an area of which they are proud. They have developed it to the best of their skills and abilities. Plymouth is now trying to take it over. This process was described by the Minister of Housing on the 26th May, 1965, and I find it totally inconsistent therefore that he should find himself making a decision to offset the findings of the two inquiries under the Local Government Commission in the way that he did. It was said at the time —and the Minister, in his letter to which I have referred, mentions this—that the arguments were finely balanced indeed.

I should like to quote from the report that was made by the Commission after it had first said that Plymouth should not have its way. The concluding paragraph, paragraph 264 in the appeal, says:
After reviewing all the arguments submitted by Plymouth on our draft proposals, together with those of the other authorities concerned, we were not satisfied that the new material submitted by Plymouth was such as to justify our changing the views expressed in our draft proposals. Accordingly, we recommend no alteration in the present boundaries of Plymouth.
What is the point of going through this expensive charade if the result is that the then Minister of Housing, in a moment of passion, should overrule it? Twice this has been investigated by experts. Twice all the evidence has been placed before them. They went over Plymouth's arguments with great care and consideration, and with great courtesy, and twice they have said that there is no case on balance for going through with the Plymouth Order. And yet this Government is pressing this Order.
Therefore, I can only appeal to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing to think again. I realise that he is in a difficult situation. I realise the decision taken by the Minister of Housing responsible makes it difficult for him to be generous. It makes it difficult for him to say that perhaps there is an argument for holding up the Order. I am not asking the Government to say that they were wrong. I am asking them to consider the depth of local feeling, to consider the purposes for which the Local Government Commission was set up. I am asking them to consider whether they are not prejudicing the happy results which we hope to see from that Commission, as they affect my constituents and people living outside my constituency and, I hope, the whole of the country. I am asking them to consider whether, by the course which they are following, they are not prejudicing the things for which they are striving most energetically. I hope that they will feel this is not the moment to reject the proposals absolutely but that this is the sort of scheme that should be held up pending the results of that Commission. Whatever they may feel they must do to support a previous Minister of Housing, in their hearts and their minds they must know that common sense at this


moment demands that the Order be put on one side until we are able to do the job properly and permanently.

11.51 a.m.

Dr. David Owen: I find myself in an extraordinary position today, because Plympton is the town in which I was born and in which I have lived a great part of my life. I am now proud to be a Member of Parliament for Plymouth. Normally, these two interests go hand in hand. They provide me with a unique opportunity to speak in the House from local knowledge.
However, today I find myself, and certainly my interests, in conflict to a certain extent. I am in the rather extraordinary position of having a mother who is a Devon county councillor and who is leading the action group which opposes the Order. I support the Order. Lady Eden said at the time of Suez that the canal ran through her sitting room. My father must feel that the Plymouth boundary runs through our house. No one will be happier than he to see this matter settled one way or the other—and, I suspect, not the way his son wants to see it settled.
This s a very serious and very difficult Order. It is understandable that, all through, the arguments have been said to be "finely balanced". I want to start by dealing with the main burden of what the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) said, namely, that the Order is opposed by the vast majority of those who reside in the added areas. I do not dispute this for a moment. Anyhow, it is clearly shown by the referendum. But we should look to the history of why this feeling is there and why it has arisen to such a very marked extent. As the hon. Gentleman generously conceded, all forms of local government always cause very considerable feeling. This is a rather strange and difficult situation, and we must look back into history.
Many centuries ago Plympton was a more important town than Plymouth. Plympton was the thriving community with a priory and a castle. In 1242 Plympton Erie was made a borough. In 1295, when Edward called his first Parliament, burgesses came only from the older towns of Tavistock and Plymp-

ton. It was not until the second Parliament in 1298 that Plymouth sent burgesses. Gradually, the influence of the priory of Plympton has waned and the town of Plymouth has grown. This is the background. In 1328, when Plympton was made a stannary town, it was already beginning to lose its influence. It was a port. Gradually the Laira Estuary filled up with silt from the products of to mining. It now fills up with silt from the products of china clay. Gradually and inexorably Sutton became the terminal port instead of Plympton and Plymouth's influence grew. In 1439, and finally in 1440, Plymouth negotiated and became a borough town and was also the first town in England to be incorporated by Act of Parliament.
There has been this conflict all through history of Plympton gradually waning in influence and Plymouth pushing up its influence and expanding its population. As somebody who has lived in Plympton, I am very proud of our old traditions. We have an active parish council which beats the bounds. We can claim Sir Joshua Reynolds as a mayor and as somebody who was born there. There is this very real feeling, particularly in the parish of Plympton St. Maurice, which does not want to be taken over by Plymouth.
I suggest to the House that this conflict has been seen in Plymouth before. When Devonport was amalgamated with Plymouth, there was very considerable feeling, as I am sure the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) will attest. That has died down and now very few people, other than the very old, look back on those old days. I think that the majority of people convincingly feel that Plymouth has gained from that amalgamation. It is my fervent belief that Plymouth and the people in the added areas will gain from this amalgamation. However, I understand the feeling, and I think that we should be foolish to underestimate it.
Let us look at the position as it is before us now and think back. First, this controversy has been going on for seven years. The hon. Member for Tavistock made much of the fact that, as a Royal Commission was already sitting, and will, we hope, be reporting late in 1968, this was no time to go through with boundary changes. If the hon.


Gentleman could show, which he singularly failed to show, that this boundary extension could in any way work against any likely recommendation from the Royal Commission, his case would be a strong one. But the facts are, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I know, that the Commission is bound to form larger units of local government. This is an inexorable tendency. It is clear that, whatever comes out of the Commission, Plymouth's boundaries will be extended to take in a much larger area than is being taken in at the present.
I do not think for one moment that this boundary change will militate against any recommendation which is likely to be made by the Commission. In fact, I think that it will help it, because I believe that this is an inevitable addition to the city boundaries. By forming a bigger and more viable centre of administration in advance of the Commission, Plymouth will be in a far better position to administer the wider area which I hope it receives.
The hon. Gentleman talked about a growth centre in the South-West. He will know that I feel very strongly about this. The whole prosperity of the South-West depends on building up an economic industrial centre in Plymouth. To this end, I support all efforts to strengthen Plymouth's authority in the nation and its size and ability as a local authority.
I believe that the Order was a very courageous decision by a Labour Minister of Housing. It shows that which is most important—anticipation of an inevitable tendency. Though it must be admitted that the two Commissions came down on a finely balanced judgment against this, my right hon. Friend felt, reviewing the situation and with his inspector's report before him, that there were advantages in this.
I want now to take up some of the points which the hon. Gentleman made. First, he did his case a slight disservice by arguing against a community interest between Plympton and Plymstock and Plymouth, because this community of interests and continuity of development, which are paragraphs (a) and (b) of Regulation 11 of the Local Government Commission's Regulations, Statutory Instrument 2115 of 1958, has been accepted by both Commissions. The community of

interest argument and the continuity of development argument have been accepted.
Speaking from my own experience, I think that this is clear-cut. I can remember as a small boy talking of going into Plymouth and Plympton. All the time I have been growing up I have seen the growth of Plympton and the gradual fusion of Plympton and Plymstock with Plymouth. The bridge across the Laira between Plymstock and Plymouth is now a very excellent one. The tendency for people to move into Plymouth, to shop in Plymouth, has been progressive. The build-up of the population of Plympton has continued throughout this time. This argument has been accepted, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would have done better to have conceded it. It was paragraph (c) which the Commission found it could not accept. That was the balance of advantage in the change.
I wish to correct one point in the speech of the hon. Member for Tavistock. He said that the population of Plymouth was well over 200,000. This is not the case. The population of civilians in 1965 —and we ought to confine ourselves to civilians as the Service population has waxed and waned very much—was 200,100 and in 1951 it was 198,300. The population of Plymouth has been remarkably static for many years.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I have the Registrar General's figures, which show the population in 1966 as 213,980 and this compares more or less with the 1961 figure of 212,780.

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but he has added the Forces population. In 1965 the Forces population was 12,400 and for 1966 we do not have a breakdown between the Forces and the civilian population. In considering Plympton and Plymstock it would be better to leave out the Forces population; then we would get a much better understanding of the static position. The Forces population also affects Plympton and Plymstock. Between 1961 and 1965 there has been a very substantial civilian increase 14,650, in the added areas of Plympton and Plymstock, and the population has risen from 17,850 to 32,500. There has been an increase in the population of Plymouth in this period of only


1,800. This shows that the growth in the size of Plymouth has largely gone to the added areas.
To find the reason for this we have to look back a little into history. This started soon after the war years, because the centre of Plymouth was devastatingly bombed and there was a tendency to move out of the city. The hon. Member spoke about young people deciding to get out and being compulsorily brought back, but I do not think that represents the facts of the situation. Many went out because there happened to be houses and development outside the city and many of the people in Plymouth have relatives in Plympton.
This works against the hon. Member's case. There is no question that Plympton and Plymstock have formed a valuable part of Plymouth in many senses and we should look at the balance of advantage in the change. Plymouth feels that the migration is a drain on the city's reserves and an important section of the community is left outside, yet at the same time they can enjoy the facilities of the city and should be contributing in terms of personnel and rateable value to the city. This is a good argument.
One of the remarkable things about this take-over has been that the city council is united. It is a city council which has changed its political complexion on a number of occasions, but there has been a united resolve of both Labour and Conservative members in wanting this Order. Although we hear talk about a dictator and compulsory orders, the Minister could hardly be suspected of political motivation in taking over Plympton and Plymstock, for all of us who wish the Labour council well know that we have a much harder fight on our hands than if we were just fighting Plymouth City Council with its present boundaries.
These two towns with Plymouth form one single urban complex which fits into a natural authority for the effective solution of problems of redistribution of population, traffic, allocation of land for housing and attraction and development of new industry. The hon. Member for Tavistock made rather disparaging comments about the proposals relating to the Plym Estuary and the Cattewater. There are one-and-half miles of the Cattewater

on the Devon side and he asked why we should not take over Cornwall. I think it should not be beyond the competence of the boundary Commission to look at Cornwall in this respect, but that is for another day. The Cattewater should be treated by one authority.
A great many of us are keen to see the polytechnic which is to come to Plymouth gradually building up studies in maritime affairs and we hope eventually to produce a university. There are plans for extending the Cattewater to make it a yachting centre and to offer research facilities for Government Departments. A large part of this area in Devon is in Service hands and landscaping is badly needed. If we are to make the Cattewater commercially more viable and important, having one authority to deal with it would be a great advantage.
Forty-eight per cent. of the population of Plympton and Plymstock work in the city. This percentage was the same in 1951 as in 1961. The number of those working in the city has never been accepted as the sole criterion for a boundary change. That is quite right, but it is an important criterion which we should consider.
I come to some of the arguments against the proposal, because they were ones which weighed the balance of advantage and made the Commission come down against Plymouth's proposals. Much was made of the financial implications to Devon County Council and that under the Order it was taking a large portion of its rateable value and this would affect the county rate. On 17th February, 1967 Devon County Council announced that its rate was pegged at 8s. in the £. This was only the third year since the war that it had not gone up. The reasons given were the increased Government grants, the proposed transfer of Plympton and Plymstock and the amalgamation of the police forces. Devon county rate, therefore, has been well protected by the transitional arrangements made by the Government, and that argument does not hold up.
As for the rural district council rate, to which the hon. Member for Tavistock rightly drew attention, this has been eased by the city paying £90,000 over five years and in the initial year, when the burden may be the greatest, it is expected to be


£30,000. That is a generous offset of what otherwise would mean an increase of 1s. 3d. in the £. It will go a long way to meeting objections.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Within the very short period of two or three years rural district ratepayers will find their rates up to the level of the Plymouth rates.

Dr. Owen: This is a five-year transitional arrangement which is very generous, although I agree that they may eventually come up to the Plymouth rate.
Another point which the hon. Member raised was about viability. The rural district council population will be reduced to 12,800. Of 16 rural districts in Devon seven have a greater population and eight have a smaller population. The present offices of the rural district council are not to be transferred. They could stay within the city boundary, and this has been a satisfactory administrative area in the past. Loan charges on Devon County Council development will be taken over by the city council, which of course is quite right. In my view, therefore, the arguments on finance and viability are not strong.
The last argument, to which Plymouth attached great importance at the time of the Commission, needs examination. The hon. Gentleman said that we got no land by taking over this added area. The Plymouth city planning officer feels that in the added areas we shall have 490 acres for residential development which are not already the subject of planning permission. This is a substantial increase, particularly as we have only 470 acres like that available in Plymouth at the moment, and we are tight for land.
If we are to build up Plymouth to be the regional centre for the South-West and eventually, I hope, to be the site for a regional parliament, we must have land available. We are expanding our college of technology to become a polytechnic. We have to build a district general hospital at Derriford, to serve both the Plymouth area and a large proportion of Devon county, which will take up a large amount of the city's land, quite rightly. We hope to attract a teacher training college. We always have the demands of the Defence Department, which have taken a heavy load

of Plymouth's land in the past and may well do so in the future.
Most important of all, the City Council has shown its determination to try to attract overspill population to Plymouth. There is a determination in Plymouth to make it an economically viable city, to diversify its economy and to make it not as dependent as it has been in the past on the dockyard. We have, therefore, collaborated with Devon county in bringing industrial consultants in to look at the possibility of attracting population, and there is at the moment a pilot scheme being undertaken with the Greater London County Council under which it is eventually hoped that 10,000 people from London will come down to Plymouth. These people must be housed, and land will be important.
We have an industrial estate proceeding at Estover, and we are to start building the Leigham estate. We need land. Land is an important attribute for an expanding city. We must have land available to offer to people if they come forward with imaginative schemes for industry, for factories or for higher education.
We have to confess that it was the Minister himself who limited Plymouth's application for land. In its original application, Plymouth wanted more land and asked, in fact, for Wembury. It was the Minister who drew the boundary very tight.
I have referred to the local feeling. Very little has been said about the transitional arrangements, and this is a tribute to Devon County Council and Plymouth City Council for the way in which they have made real efforts to agree on the complicated machinery for transitional arrangements. Everyone has been aware that the outlying areas could be badly served unless there were thoroughly satisfactory transitional arrangements. Plymouth City Council has expressed its readiness to meet Devon County Council over this, even if the present arrangements turn out to be unsatisfactory, and it has said that it will be very flexible. It can do no more than that.
There has been real collaboration and co-operation. The education problem, which has come up just recently, has been settled to Devon county's satisfaction, to my satisfaction and to everyone's


satisfaction. A clear statement has come from the city council that it will proceed with the comprehensive reorganisation scheme drawn up by Devon County Council.
This is an Order which shows vision. It allows Plymouth to expand. It is opposed by people who feel that they have strong grounds for opposition, and I understand their feeling, but I believe that the time has now come for cooperation, for Plympton and Plymstock, inside Plymouth, to make a valuable contribution to the city. When the Order is implemented. I shall be proud to be able to say that I am in essence and in truth a Plymouthian.

12.14 a.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: After the powerful speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), and in view of the shortness of time, I shall say only a few words. I fully support the Order, and I do so having in mind our previous experience in Devonport of being taken over, with the urban district of Stone-house also amalgamated with Plymouth. This has worked very satisfactorily, despite the fact that Devonport then had its own Lord Mayor and moot hall and it was a powerful entity itself. Perhaps I might remind the House also that we had Stonehouse Creek and the bridge at that time, which was a deep division between Plympton and Plymouth.
I must correct what my hon. Friend said about the 3,500 acres. There are only 1,000 acres still undeveloped. When we had the inquiry, however, we were asked to look ahead for at least 15 or 20 years, as the hon. Member for Sutton has said. We need more factories. Our unemployment rate, 3·7 per cent., is very high at present, and it is essential that we have more industry attracted to the area. For this purpose we need land.
As for the amenities such as the guildhall, the swimming pool, the museum and so on, these are used also by people from Plympton and Plymstock, and they might contribute something towards them. I remind the House that, when the Local Government Commission for

England considered the South Western Review area—this appears on page 89 of its Report—the County Borough Council of Plymouth's suggestions included a rather larger area, bringing in Plymouth St. Mary rural district, with Plympton St. Maurice, Plymstock, Wembury, part of Plympton St. Mary and part of Brixton. One of the objections to the Order, I feel, is that it does rather carve up some of the small villages in an undesirable way. I support what the hon. Member for Sutton said in urging that we must think in the future, when the Royal Commission on Local Government reports, of these wider areas. I consider that we should in the future have areas based on Exeter, Torbay, Plymouth and, perhaps, Barnstaple, and eventually, perhaps, do away with Devon County Council. This is what we should look to in the years ahead, having an elected co-ordinating committee dealing, probably, with the whole of Devon and Cornwall so as to have some form of connected regional organisation.
Practically all the points which arise have been adequately dealt with by the hon. Member for Sutton, who has great knowledge of these matters. I particularly endorse what he said about the polytechnic, the teacher training college and the idea that we should have a bigger population so as to relieve London or Birmingham of some of their enormous population. These people could come down to help in the growth point of the South-West, which, we believe, will be the City of Plymouth.
The hon. Gentleman emphasised how dependent we have been on the Services. Now, with the Government's wish to cut the defence programme, this is a worrying factor, and for that reason also we need further land in order to build more factories.
We know how long Royal Commissions take to report. In my view, it would be better to take this step towards making a larger conurbation rather than wait, perhaps, seven or 10 years till the Royal Commission on Local Government produces its report. We all want to give the Minister an opportunity to reply, so I shall say no more. I support the Order, and I hope that the Minister will be able to set at rest some of the anxieties which people feel. One accepts that these anxieties are justifiable in the minds of


those who live in the areas to be incorporated into Plymouth, and I hope that he will give them reassurance.

12.18 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I also wish to leave the Minister time to reply, but in my few remarks I shall support the citizens of Plympton in their opposition to Plymouth's take-over. I do not think that there has ever been an Order with a worse name to describe it than this Plymouth Order. A far better name would be the "Rape of Plympton" Order, 1966. I am sorry, in one sense, that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is not here to listen to what is said, because he is cast in the r´le of Pandarus, and he was the greatest pimp in history. He is not entirely responsible for his actions, as he was landed with this baby by his predecessor, but it is not too late to change the Ministry's decisions. After all, this will not be the first time that the present Leader of the House has been proved wrong.
I support the citizens and congratulate them on a first-class fight. Organisation of the referendum was magnificent and a true joint political venture, even if not supported by all the elements in the political firmament. The Plymouth arguments do not stand up at all. They have been completely demolished already by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) and by the 1963 Boundary Review, in the pages of which they tumbled one by one.
I do not intend to go through them now but only to remind the House that the Review ended with the words:
We decided that the case for the inclusion of Plympton and Plymstock in Plymouth was not strong enough to justify change.
The case which Plymouth has put forward, that its young people are moving out and that these areas should therefore be incorporated in the City because people are working there, could well be applied to Brighton's relationship to London. There is a host of areas around this city where people live who work in the centre of London. Where does this argument stop?
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said that the Royal Commission would produce a Report which would not militate against the

Order. I do not know how he knows what the Commission will say. I agree that it may say there should be larger units in local government, with which I would agree, but at what tier would we have the larger units? If we are to have them at county or regional level, it is extremely important to strengthen the lower tier of local government to ensure that the democratic ties between the local authority and the people are strengthened as much as possible. There is a grave danger in the Order that the people of the area will have a feeling of distance from the decisions made about them.
The hon. Member for Tavistock asked "Why not Cornwall?" In case the Minister should take this hint to heart, let me warn him that, if they set one dirty foot across the Tamar, the clang of the anvil will be heard in Michael Joseph's blacksmith's shop again, Trelawney will rise from his grave and a great many more than 20,000 Cornishmen will march to know the reason why!
The rape of Cornwall has not yet begun, but I warn the hon. Gentleman that, if it does, it will be a very bloody business indeed. We across the Tamar, are always happy to lend a hand to the downtrodden and oppressed. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to change his mind—it is not too late to think again.

12.23 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): Over the years now, it becomes trite to say that something is always happening in this place. In the years that I have been taking part in debates on local government reorganisation, from both sides of the House, I have heard no appeal so poignant and unique as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen).
I thought that he provided us with an admirable clinical examination of the position as one would expect from one of his distinction. In notable distinction from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), he balanced the issues and saw the poignant realities of this decision from both sides and its importance to the communities, and was able to put it from the point of view of someone who lived with both sides of the problem.


The language used by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North did not advance us at all. Of course, if one approaches these difficult questions in that kind of slap-happy way, one does not lay the kind of foundations on which communities can work together. Our problem in the world today is not to spread local hatred but to get communities to recognise that they have common interests and to use them to solve common problems.
I have little to add to what has been said and will deal only with the points as they appear to my two right hon. Friends who have been so much involved. As to the reason for a quick decision, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, gave a very poignant reason, that we ought to settle it one way or another and not put it off until after the Royal Commission reports. We have acted entirely in conformity with what we have always said we would do in looking at Local Government Commission recommendations.
It is not correct to say that, in this case, we have completely reversed the overwhelming rejection of the arguments by the Local Government Commission. The Commission saw the balance of argument as everyone else in the debate has seen it. It came down on the other side from that of my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House. He was entitled to have a different opinion, but, equally, those who dislike the Order are perfectly entitled to make the point that this was not the view of the Commission. However, it was very difficult and nicely balanced.
The main argument which influenced my right hon. Friends in considering this was the inter-relation of these two communities. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) asked how we could possibly justify morally making an Order which forced these people who sought to escape from Plymouth into Plymstock to go back to the city. The answer is that many of them do not seek to escape, because they go back to Plymouth to work, and enjoy its services. They no doubt go to the Plymouth Library in the lunch hour. They are nearer the centre of Plymouth, particuparts of the existing city. From that larly the new centre, than those in many point of view, they are not contracting out but are an integral part.
The converse is also true. As industrial development takes place outside the town, in the same way, people will come out from Plymouth to work in the added areas, so there will be a growing interchange of activity and movement between the populations. In view of that, it is sensible to recognise that they are one community and that they should take part together in the privileges and the responsibilities of common citizenship.
There are arrangements for transitional help to the rural districts from Plymouth and for keeping down the increase in rates in the added area, as is normal when these things happen. It will to some extent make the transition less harsh. However, the basic question is still, are they to come into the city with which many of them are closely identified, and take their responsibilities in it? On balance, painfully, after much thought, my two right hon. Friends, having looked at the problem and read their inspector's Report, concluded that the right thing was to submit the Order to the House.

12.29 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: In the 60 seconds or so before you put the Question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to remind the House that this Order, like so many others of a similar nature, comes while the Royal Commission is deliberating on the future structure of local authorities. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said that the Order was the anticipation of the inevitable conclusion by the Commission that there must be larger local authorities.
I do not know that that is so in this form. The Royal Commission may recommend balanced conurbations, and not a take-over by the city which is the main local authority in any area. The conurbation authority may be a larger one with smaller authorities under it, the form of which is not necessarily that laid down in the Order.
We may be not only pre-judging but prejudicing the Royal Commission's Report. The Minister justified a similar Order a few days ago on the ground that it would take a long time to bring about reform of local government structure when the recommendations of the Commission were received. This is not what his predecessor said. What we were


told when the Royal Commission was set up by the then Minister was that this was a dynamic policy of the present Government, an urgent drive for local government reform. Now we are told that it will take many years to carry out that reform. The Commission was supposed to be hurrying up this reform, but it is doing nothing of the sort. We are receiving only piecemeal reforms through this and similar Orders and no policy whatever is coming from the Minister.

Question put:—

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER'S opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Proceedings stood deferred pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)).

Orders of the Day — ROADS (BURTON-ON-TRENT BRIDGE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

12.31 p.m.

Mr. C. J. Jennings: I am grateful for this opportunity of bringing to the notice of the House the urgent necessity for the building of a second bridge across the River Trent at Burton-on-Trent.
In the middle of the twelfth century, the first bridge across the Trent was built on the site of the present bridge. That appeared to be adequate until the middle of the last century, when, in 1864, a new bridge was built. This appeared to be adequate until the advent of the motor car; and so, in the '20s, the existing bridge was widened. That appeared to suffice until the late '50s, since when the traffic situation has developed and worsened to such a point when a new bridge is vital. The rate of traffic over the bridge has increased so much that urgent action is necessary.
If I said no more than that, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would agree that I had stated the crux of the problem. The rate of increase in traffic using the bridge has completely overwhelmed the capacity of the bridge to handle modern traffic. That, basically, is the argument, but it may be convenient if I give further reasons to explain why action is urgent, and I will give these reasons under three headings; statistics, geography and social needs.
I do not want to bore the House by giving a whole range of statistics. I have come armed with a great many figures, which I will hand to the Parliamentary Secretary later, if he is not already in possession of them. I will give three simple illustrations to show how, statistically, the bridge is insufficient for the traffic it must carry. On 10th December, 1965, when the main road between Derby and Burton, the A.38, was flooded, traffic to and from Derby was diverted through Repton. This meant that the whole of that traffic on the A.38 had to cross the bridge at Burton.
From a census taken at that time, that diversion represented an increase of 19 per cent. over even the peak flow of


traffic across the bridge. I will never forget that day. There was complete chaos. For many hours the whole town was at a standstill as a result of the absolute congestion of traffic. I speak with heartfelt feelings on this subject, because I was in the middle of the town sitting in my motor car. In one hour I moved about a dozen yards. Finally, when I got to the bridge, it look at least half an hour to cross it. The whole town centre was jammed and conditions were abnormal, to say the least.
Considering that there is at present taking place an annual rate of growth in traffic of about 9 per cent., what was abnormal on that day in Burton will be the normal traffic pattern by the end of 1968. In other words, we will reproduce the conditions of that day by the normal increase which is taking place in traffic flow.
Secondly, in the peak period about 2,500 vehicles cross the bridge every hour. A disturbing factor is that 1,000 pedestrians cross the flow of traffic every hour. My third example is that the traffic on the bridge in one peak period last August represented a greater flow than at three specific points on the M6 on the same day. Without going into further statistics, these three illustrations will prove how necessary an additional bridge is in this area.
The idea of having a new bridge was mooted some time ago. Indeed, we have the approval of the Ministry's divisional road engineer, in which he agreed in principle not only to the bridge but to a proposed site. If the principle is established and if the go-ahead from the Ministry were given, there might be considerable argument about the siting of the bridge, but I will not go into that today.
Having got the approval of the divisional road engineer, the town council, in an orthodox manner, submitted proposals on two separate occasions to the Ministry—for the 1968–69 programme and for the 1969–70 programme—but in each case no action was taken.
Today I am not asking for pious hopes or specious platitudes from the Parliamentary Secretary, but a firm promise of action in the near future. He now has the opportunity, in view of the

announcement made by the Minister of Transport yesterday—in relation to firm schemes being announced in what she called a "preparation pool"—to put this Burton scheme, either at once or later in the year, into this "preparation pool" so that it may be included in the second-phase of the pool, which will enable the bridge to be started by 1970.
Burton has gone about this matter in a completely orthodox and courteous manner. It is obvious, however, that this approach has not paid dividends. That is why I am now beginning a campaign in the House, although I hope that I will receive such a promising reply from the Minister that I will not need to take the campaign any further in future.
The geographical reasons are also straightforward. Burton is situated in the middle of England. It is not often enough emphasised that the bridge at Burton represents the traffic throughway between the M1 and the M6, and, of course, this aggravates the problem. Burton is literally the main road to London from that part of the Midlands and traffic through Burton comes from a very wide area indeed.
The type of traffic using the bridge is changing and is becoming heavier. For example, Burton is world renowned for its beer. This commodity is today transported not so much by rail as by big tankers, a large volume of which crosses the Trent Bridge at Burton. I appreciate that we are to have a new bypass from Lichfield to Derby, but if the Minister examines the situation he will see that this will not help Burton's bridge traffic because the traffic using the new by-pass will be going in another direction.
Swadlincote has become very famous in recent weeks. It has almost become a new capital of England. It is the constituency of the Foreign Secretary, my parliamentary neighbour. Many of his constituents come into my constituency to work. The chaos that results from driving conditions on the bridge militates against the comfortable and easy travelling of many of the Foreign Secretary's constituents. I hope that the plight of Swadlincote people will, in spite of its prominence recently, be remembered by the Parliamentary Secretary and his Minister.


The cost of the new scheme would at present be about £800,000, but the longer we wait the greater will be the cost.
The social reasons boil down to how the people of Burton are affected by the present situation. The main factor is the delay caused to thousands of people at peak periods. Between 8.15 and 9 o'clock in the morning and a quarter to five and 6 o'clock in the evening the public transport system is thrown completely off its schedules. People leaving work at 5 o'clock never know when they can catch a bus and, when they have caught one, they do not know when they will reach home. If the Parliamentary Secretary lived across the river at Burton and, being scheduled to catch a certain train allowed himself half an hour or longer, according to the bus timetable, he would never catch that train. Catching trains in Burton, particularly in the morning, is an absolute nightmare.
Very important, too, is the effect on the traders in the town. Very few people will shop in the last hour if they travel by car. They get out of the town before then. Further, it only needs one accident at either end of the bridge—and we have had accidents a number of times—or some dislocation of the traffic lights system for there to be complete chaos for miles. I have known chaos for three miles outside Burton, and for the whole town to come to a standstill.
The Minister should now see the reason for this debate. I am staking a claim in this House for a place in the capital roads programme. I am asking the hon. Gentleman either to put us in the scheme announced yesterday, or the supplement to it that comes at the end of the year, or, alternatively—but I prefer the first idea—to put us into the 1970–71 capital roads programme.
We have tried formal, orthodox ways, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give me a very satisfactory reply. I have never lived here by threats, because the threats of the back-bench Member now and then are not worth too much, but we can and will be effective. I promise the hon. Gentleman that unless we get something forthcoming now from the Ministry, I am prepared to drop the formal orthodox methods we have so far used and wage a major virulent cam-

paign in the House. I am, however, grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for coming here this morning to answer me.

12.43 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): I thank the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) for his exposition of the pressures on the existing crossing of the Trent at Burton, and of the need for relief to be provided by means of an additional bridge. I am well aware of the kind of problem he has posed. There was a similar situation in my own constituency, which has only recently been corrected. I am therefore very familiar with this kind of traffic problem, and very sympathetic to the hon. Member and to Burton-on-Trent. I hope that when I have finished speaking the hon. Gentleman will be reasonably content.
We are well aware of the traffic congestion on the existing bridge. Not only is it, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, the only route between Burton and places east of the Trent, but it also carries an important volume of through traffic between those places, served mainly by the A50 and A444 roads, and the Potteries and the North-West. This is the backcloth to the present discussion.
The natural growth of these classes of traffic has been accelerated by the attractions of the A50 as a connection to the M6 motorway. While its use as a link between the M6 and the M1 by traffic to and from the south is likely to diminish when the present Midland motorway link is completed, as it is expected to be in 1971, its importance as a route to the M6 for traffic from Leicester and beyond will remain.
Despite the pressures which have thus built up into a need, which we fully recognise, for some relief to be provided to the existing bridge, my right hon. Friend has not so far found it possible to include a scheme for a second bridge in her forward programme of classified road construction. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a very great number of desirable road improvements throughout the country, and even the very substantial programme that has now been announced for the years up to 1971 is far from sufficient to deal with them all.


The relative merits of competing candidates for a place in the forward programme have to be assessed nationally, and it inevitably happens that schemes, the need for which is accepted not only by local opinion but by the Ministry, have to be rejected in favour of even more urgent improvements. However, we are now in the final stages—and I hope that this information brings some comfort to the hon. Gentleman—of preparing the final instalment of a list, which my right hon. Friend expects to be able to announce within a month or two, of classified road schemes which, while not immediately included in the firm programme, could be planned and prepared by the highway authorities concerned with a view to their inclusion in the programme during the first part of the 'seventies.
The list will be based on proposals put forward by local highway authorities, and included in these proposals is a proposal from the Burton-on-Trent County Borough Council for a new bridge to cross the Trent between Stapenhill Road and Lichfield Street. The cost of the scheme, including some improvement of

Park Street, was estimated at £872,000. This scheme would complete an inner ring road system in Burton, and would considerably alleviate the town's traffic problems. While I cannot, of course, anticipate the announcement that my right hon. Friend will be making, I can say now that the prospects of its including this scheme proposed by the Burton Borough Council are good.
I trust that this considered statement will be of some comfort to the hon. Gentleman. I am well aware of his courtesy during the almost eight years I have been in this House, and that of the County Borough Council in the way it has made its case. I hope that he and the Council can await the publication of the list within what I hope will be a month or so.

Mr. Jennings: I am grateful to the Minister. I have got some comfort from what he has said.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Orders of the Day — NEW WRIT

For Honiton, in the room of Robert Mathew, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PORT OF LONDON BILL (By Order)

BRIGHTON MARINA BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 2nd March.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the aggregate number of houses under construction and the number of houses where tenders had been approved but not started in the year to October, 1964, and in the year to January,1967.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): At 31st December, 1966, 50,550 houses were under construction, compared with 47,043 at 30th September, 1964. In the public sector 15,993 had been approved but not started at 31st December, 1966, compared with 8,118 at 30th September, 1964.

Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that these figures augur well for Scotland's future housing output and completely rout the dismal jeremiahs opposite who continually play down Scotland and Scotland's building workers?

Dr. Mabon: Yes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said last night, these figures taken together—that is, the 66,543 houses in both categories, as against the comparable figure of 55,161 at September, 1964—represent an increase of 20 per cent. in the programme and are a good first step towards the 50,000 target.

Mr. Brewis: Did not educational building under construction and tenders approved decrease over the period by about the same amount?

Dr. Mabon: That is a very different question, but I understand that the figures are improving.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have been completed since October, 1964 until the nearest convenient date; and how many were completed in the same period prior to 1964.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have been completed since October, 1964 until the nearest convenient date; how many were completed in the same period to 1964; and what percentage increase this represents as compared with the same period to 1964 over the equivalent period up to 1962.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In the 2¼ years after 1st October, 1964, 82,289 houses were completed; in the 2¼ years before that date the number completed was 67,822; and in the 2¼ years before that again it was 62,142. The increase from 9 per cent., and from the second period to the latest it was 21 per cent.

Mr. Manuel: These figures speak for themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is my hon. Friend aware that I should be the very last person to be complacent about housing conditions in Scotland? I appeal to my hon. Friend, who has the ability, to dedicate himself to the eradication of our bad housing conditions in Scotland, and I am sure that the whole House would wish him every success in solving what has been till now an insoluble problem.

Dr. Mabon: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. In the last six months of 1966 approvals were 30,000 up on the first six months of 1966, which bodes well for the later development programme.

Earl of Dalkeith: If the hon. Gentleman had taken these figures to the end of the years in question he would have found that there was a 21 per cent. increase in the Tory years and a 9 per cent. increase in the Socialist years. Therefore, 7,000 or 8,000 families who would otherwise have had houses had the Tory momentum been maintained, are without them.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman's Question is directed to the period 1st April, 1960 to 1st July, 1962. The number of houses built then was 62,142 under the Conservatives. The next period was 1st July, 1962 to 1st October, 1964, when 67,822 houses were built. The last period was the period for which the present Government are responsible.

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why nearly 4,000 fewer houses were completed in Scotland in 1966 than the 40,000 proposed in March.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Over 50,000 houses were under construction at the beginning of 1966. Some have taken longer to build than we had reason to expect.

Mr. Campbell: Why in March, when all the relevant facts must have been known to the Government, did the Secretary of State allow this statement to be made—a definite statement which did not come true? Will he in future strictly refrain from making misleading promises to Scotland?

Dr. Mahon: My right hon. Friend has never sought to enter into competition with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends in matters like this, and never would. If the hon. Gentleman is serious in his question, I ought to tell him that, subsequent to our debate last night on this matter, we can only judge, as all Governments can, on past information about average building times.
The nature of the Scottish house building programme is now quite different from past years, and the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the low-rise housing is now stretching out to 16 months' completion time. That was the figure of last year, not available to us previously. What is much more interesting and significant is that multistorey blocks take between 21 and 23 months to complete, because of their involved structure. These are essential facts in considering future estimates, of which I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as ourselves, will take account.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there was no basis whatsoever for the extravagant promises last

March? Is he aware that by the use of his right hon. Friend's name and a photograph of the Prime Minister, the electors of Scotland were led to think that there was some reason for these promises, and many of them voted for Labour on the strength of them? Will he now make some apology to the electors for misleading them so monstrously?

Dr. Mabon: On the contrary, I think that the electors will give us a thundering vote of confidence at the next General Election, when we will have passed 40,000 and be well on the way to 50,000 houses.

Mr. Noble: Does the Minister of State realise that there was also one rather tragic advantage to the Scottish Office in that since October there has been quite a sharp rise in unemployment among people in the building industry, and that often in the past shortage of skilled men has held back house building? Is he aware that he and his Government, tragically, have had this advantage, but have not used it?

Dr. Mabon: The right hon. Gentleman had better look at his figures again, to see that he is quite wrong here. Many of those who will become unemployed transitionally are moving into construction trades, but with the reflation which is inevitably coming into the economy—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—we might see another adjustment and the difficulties facing the housing programme will return.

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to increase the building of more private houses to buy and to rent.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for the length of this Answer, but it is inescapable.
We are continuing our discussions directly with the Scottish builders on how their output of houses for sale can be increased. The difficulties being reviewed include land availability, planning clearance, site servicing and finance. As announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 6th February. the banks are willing and ready to meet all normal and creditworthy demands for bridging finance for builders and purchasers; the building societies will have more money to lend this year, and


the option mortgage proposals at present before the House will help.
For co-operative ownership and for an increase in new houses to rent we are looking to the housing associations, financed with the help of the Housing Corporation.

Mr. Galbraith: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having taken a course in speedy reading. In spite of the explanation, can the Government be really satisfied with a situation in which 100 per cent. fewer private houses are built in Scotland than in England? Do they not realise that one of the reasons, which was not mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, is the unfair rent structure? Will they not do something about that, because nothing would stimulate housing more?

Dr. Mabon: This system has persisted in Scotland for many years both under the hon. Gentleman and, for that matter, his father. We are most anxious to change it and we are taking steps accordingly to increase, as we did last year, the private sector to its highest figure.

Mr. John Robertson: Would my hon. Friend tackle this problem by trying to get a reduction made in the cost of building in Scotland? The most recent survey showed that the average cost of building a house in Scotland was about 25 per cent. higher than it was in England. Would he tackle this problem so that more people in Scotland can be housed?

Dr. Mabon: We have discussed this matter with the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee. I referred to it in the debate last night. The difference in cost is a matter of great concern to us, but there is a certain degree of improvement in the standards of Scottish housing compared with the standards in England.

Selective Employment Tax (Agricultural Establishments)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average interval between the receipt and the settlement of claims from agricultural establishments for repayment of the Selective Employment Tax.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): About five weeks for the first refund period, but I

expect that in future most claims will be settled about two weeks after they are received.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Under-Secretary aware that his Department is nearly a month behind the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England in starting repayments? Is this just one more example of the Secretary of State for Scotland failing in his duties towards Scotland and playing second fiddle to England?

Mr. Buchan: I have never known of any occasion when the present Secretary of State for Scotland has failed in his duty to Scotland. We have taken about five weeks. We were installing a computer programme. About 13,000 claims have been involved, representing about £1 million of public money. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have been the first to have been concerned that there should be care about the spending of public money.

Mr. Rankin: Would my hon. Friend repudiate any attempt by the Tories to create bad feeling between Scotland and England?

Mr. Buchan: Always.

Mr. Stodart: Is the Under-Secretary aware that time was when the Scottish Office took great pride in always paying claims and administering things slightly more efficiently than its counterpart in the South, and that healthy rivalry was maintained? Will he dedicate himself to trying to restore the Scottish Office to its former efficiency?

Mr. Buchan: I do not know which part of history the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Perhaps he is referring to the famous previous 13 years. The Department is working very efficiently at present and we are doing extremely well in maintaining the healthy rivalry he referred to.

Migration

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek powers to obtain the necessary information, and then publish a half-yearly survey classifying migrants from Scotland by age, sex, occupation and training qualifications, so as to enable a true assessment to be made of the effects of emigration


on the National Plan in respect of Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): No, Sir. Any legislation designed to obtain detailed information about every migrant would have to require all persons leaving or settling in Scotland to report their movements to some central authority, and I do not consider a solution to be either practicable or desirable.

Earl of Dalkeith: I appreciate the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman faces in compiling this information, but how else does he expect to be able to produce the right policies for Scotland aimed at halting this terrible exodus unless he produces a realistic assessment of why people are going?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that we have always been in this difficulty since we have collected these statistics. He will appreciate also that a change was made in the collection of statistics with regard to Scots going overseas in 1963. The present Government have set up, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology said on 13th Fberuary, an interdepartmental committee, on which we are represented, to examine migration statistics and recommend changes. This is a very complex matter to put right and to get the correct statistics without overburdening either the individuals or those who come in contact with them in ships, at airports, and so on.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Secretary of State reconsider that negative answer, because the survey asked for in the Question would be a very useful index of the state of employment in the various areas in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: My hon. and learned Friend should reread the Question. It asks me to seek powers—powers which I do not think would be acceptable in a country like this.

Mr. Noble: I understand the Secretary of State's difficulty, but could he not ask some of the universities whether they could provide at least a sample of this information so that he and the House have better information?

Mr. Ross: The sample taken at a census will give us the opportunity of

checking the accuracy or otherwise of what we are presently doing. The right hon. Gentleman was in exactly the same position. He might tell us what he did about it.

National Health Service Prescriptions (Children)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult the Pharmaceutical Society in Scotland on the law in relation to children presenting prescriptions under the National Health Service at chemist shops.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milian): As my right hon. Friend indicated in his reply of 25th January to my hon. Friend, he does not think this is a matter calling for legislation. However, he has asked the Scottish department of the Pharmaceutical Society to consider whether it might remind its members about the need to use their discretion when children are sent to collect prescriptions.—[Vol. 739, c. 293.]

Mr. Eadie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does not he think that the discretion put on their shoulders is too large a burden for pharmacists to bear? Are they not entitled to some legal protection in the matter?

Mr. Milian: I understand that this provision has not given rise to difficulty so far, but if my hon. Friend has any evidence about it I shall be glad to consider it.

Education (Mentally Handicapped Children)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he is considering for improving education prospects for mentally-handicapped children in Scotland.

Mr. Milian: My right hon. Friend has given approval in principle to education authorities starting projects for the improvement of educational provision for mentally-handicapped children to a value of about £2 million in the period 1967–70.

Mr. Steel: I wish to encourage the Secretary of State in this effort, but will the Under-Secretary of State recognise that there is a real problem being faced by parents of such children in that there


is at present a hard line drawn between children committed to occupational centres and children committed to educational centres? Ought there not to be more flexibility between the two, according to the rate of progress of the children?

Mr. Millan: This is a difficult question, but I do not for a moment accept that there is a hard and fast line drawn. There is a good deal of flexibility already, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that both our special schools and occupational centres in Scotland, as distinct from England, are provided by the education authority, so that the opportunity for flexibility is certainly there.

Comprehensive Secondary Education

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the extent to which he has obtained co-operation from Scottish local authorities in establishing comprehensive secondary education throughout the local authority education systems.

Mr. Millan: I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend has received a very wide measure of co-operation. Education authorities have recognised the desirability of abolishing selection at the transfer stage and of introducing a comprehensive organisation; and for 25 of the 35 areas the authorities' proposals have been wholly or substantially approved. In general, discussion has centred on the method and the timing, not the principle.

Mr. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some parents of children at non-comprehensive schools are very alarmed at the possibility of a break in the education of their children in view of the threatened abolition of historic schools of proved merit? Will he tell the House and the local authorities what steps he proposes to take in the event of one or two authorities refusing to impose a comprehensive pattern?

Mr. Millan: The last part of that supplementary question is hypothetical. I have already said that education authorities as a whole are co-operating in this exercise, and I have no reason to think that refusal of the kind the hon. Gentleman has in mind will in fact occur. Naturally, parents in different parts of the country are concerned to see that the

new proposals provide a satisfactory system of secondary education, and no proposals are being accepted unless we consider that that is so.

Mr. Dewar: Does my hon. Friend agree that the local authorities have shown admirable responsibility in this matter, particularly as they have suffered from some very provocative and misguided advice from hon. Members opposite who have tried to aid and succour those few people who have doubts?

Mr. Millan: Yes, Sir. I can only repeat that the discussion which we have had with authorities has been largely about method and timing and not about the principle of secondary reorganisation.

Mr. Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are certain specialist schools, if I may so call them, looking after important minorities, and these need very special consideration both by the local authorities and by his Department? St. Mungo's and Notre Dame in Glasgow are good examples.

Mr. Millan: One would hardly call St. Mungo's and the other school mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman specialist in this sense. They are selective schools, not specialist schools.

Transport Facilities (Highlands)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the improvement of transport facilities in the Highlands in the light of the report of the Highland Transport Board; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the report on Highland transport.

Mr. Ross: The final report of the Board, which I expect will be published in April, makes many recommendations covering all forms of transport in the Highlands and Islands. I shall consider the recommendations in the light of the comments of all the interests concerned, and will make a further statement on the subject in due course.

Mr. Maclennan: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply, but in considering this report will he give serious thought to the possibility of starting a second


Highlands roads programme to connect particularly important fishing ports with the main trunk roads, and will he give consideration also to the development of the port of Scrabster, proposals for which are before him at present, both to service incoming industry in the area and to take advantage of the port's proximity to the North Atlantic routes and the routes to Scandinavia?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be short.

Mr. Ross: I realise the importance of the detailed schemes to which my hon. Friend has referred, but I suggest that he waits until he sees the actual report before we go further into the question of its recommendations.

Mr. G. Campbell: Does the Secretary of State expect the Highland Transport Board to continue with its work after this report has been published?

Mr. Ross: That is a matter for further consideration in the context of the implementation of the recommendations, through the local authorities or through some other continued link with the special problem, or through the Highland Development Board itself.

Highlands and Islands Development Board

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase there has been in the number of jobs in manufacturing industries in the seven crofting counties since the inception of the Highlands and Islands Development Board; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ross: It is not possible to say how many such jobs have been created, but the Board estimates that the financial assistance it has offered should lead to the creation of some 300 jobs in manufacturing industry. I am informed that assistance offered under Local Employment Acts in the same period is expected to result in a further 212 jobs.

Mr. Maclennan: Recognising that this is a modest but substantial achievement by the Board in its first year of work, will my right hon. Friend give every encouragement to the Board and to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade not to centralise all in-

dustrial assistance at one growth point but to spread it around areas throughout the Highlands presently suffering high unemployment?

Mr. Ross: Yes, Sir; this is part of the task of the Board, to cover the whole area, and I can tell my hon. Friend that, in advance of a fuller study, it is examining one or two possible industries which might be set up in the Wick-Thurso area. My hon. Friend began by speaking of a "modest" start. In relation to what has been done before, it is a very commendable start.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in a Written Answer to me he said that 800 jobs in service industries had been created by the Highlands and Islands Development Board? What is the logic of creating 800 service jobs and 300 manufacturing jobs and then slaying the manufacturing jobs with the S.E.T.?

Mr. Ross: We are not slaying manufacturing jobs with the S.E.T. The hon. Gentleman is confused about that. The actual jobs are there, and the important fact is that much of what is coming into the Treasury from the S.E.T. is pouring back into Scotland in the provision of jobs in manufacturing industry.

Mr. MacArthur: How much extra taxation has fallen on the Highland counties since the inception of the Highlands and Islands Development Board? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Selective Employment Tax alone is taking £2 million a year out of those counties, while the Board is putting back only one-eighth of that sum?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should balance that by saying how many more millions we are putting into the Highlands.

Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend say at this stage how many of the jobs to which he has referred are in the supply industries and how many are in the breeder industries?

Mr. Ross: The jobs to which I have referred are in manufacturing. I could not tell my hon. Friend how many relate to actual supply jobs. Many of the


supply jobs would, by definition be non-manufacturing.

Mr. Noble: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that in Campbeltown in my constituency in the last fortnight we have had the closing down of a mine and of a knitting factory, and a few miles away the closing down of a boatyard? Will he do everything he can to help the Board in its plans to try to get extra work for that area?

Mr. Ross: Yes, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the mine in the Campbeltown area is one which has caused considerable concern for a long time. It is a matter of exhaustion rather than anything else and this was something which was bound to happen. We now have an instrument by which, with the Board of Trade, we can look into the question. The right hon. Gentleman will know also that in that area there is an advance factory already allocated.

Hospitals (Geriatric Beds)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of the number of geriatric beds likely to be needed in Scottish hospitals in 1970.

Mr. Milian: The information on which current planning is based suggests that between 9,000 and 9,500 beds for geriatric assessment and long-stay geriatric patients will be needed in Scottish hospitals in 1970.

Sir J. Gilmour: Is the Minister aware that there is a pressing need to increase the number of geriatric beds? In my constituency it is almost impossible to get an elderly person a bed.

Mr. Millan: I know that there are parts of the country where there are difficulties, and that they include Fife, but about 100 additional geriatric beds will be brought into use in Fife this year on the completion of work at the Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, the Milesmark Hospital and the Northern Hospital, Dunfermline, and the Cameron Hospital. Further projects are coming along in the years beyond that.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the need for geriatric beds in Scotland, will

the Minister give an assurance that he will not close down hospitals similar to Glenafton?

Mr. Milian: My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement about Glenafton within the next week.

Uncertificated Teachers

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further measures he proposes to take to encourage uncertificated teachers to become certificated.

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend is awaiting the advice of the General Teaching Council for Scotland which, with his approval, set up a Working Party in November, 1966 to deal urgently with the problem of uncertificated teachers.

Mr. Johnston: I welcome the survey, but is the Minister aware that there can be cases where an uncertificated teacher suffers a severe drop in income by becoming certificated?

Mr. Millan: I would be very interested to see cases of that sort and we should certainly look at them. We are very anxious that the whole problem of uncertificated teachers should be dealt with.

Rent Rebate Schemes

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in order to encourage more generous rent rebate schemes, he will disregard rent rebates in the calculation of notional rents.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: No, Sir. To provide that rent rebates should be altogether ignored in these calculations could mean that some local authorities might get an unfair share of rate support grant by fixing rents which nominally reached the notional level but, in fact, did so in few cases.

Mr. Johnston: Surely the Minister would agree that in the White Paper on the period of severe restraint it was recommended that everything should be done to ensure generous rebate schemes? While one welcomes the fact that a choice is now available, why is it necessary to make a choice at all?

Dr. Mabon: Unfortunately, only one authority has taken advantage so far of


the choice in 1963–64, and the general fact is that few authorities with low rents have generous rent rebate schemes. Hon. Members will recall from our proceedings last night that in Schedule 4 of the Rate Support Grant Order we have a provision for a calculation on a 5 per cent. higher figure where rebate schemes are approved by my right hon. Friend. We should proceed along that line, and my right hon. Friend favours the extension of rent rebate schemes—effective ones, of course—throughout most of the authorities in Scotland.

Foxes (Control)

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the large number of lambs killed by foxes during the past number of lambing seasons, he will ask the Forestry Commission and the other bodies concerned to intensify their efforts both jointly and severally this spring, in order to reduce the losses suffered by farmers and crofters in hill areas in the crofting counties.

Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Forestry Commission and the other bodies concerned appreciate the need to reduce losses of stock from foxes and will continue to do all they can to keep foxes under control.

Mr. Mackenzie: While I thank the Under-Secretary for that assurance, which I think relates to Departments for which the Secretary of State is responsible—the Forestry Commission and the Department of Agriculture—may I ask whether he is satisfied that private landlords are pulling their full weight in overcoming the fox menace?

Mr. Buchan: That is another question, but I am glad to hear the satisfaction the hon. Gentleman expressed about the work of the Forestry Commission.

Local Government Officers (Salary Award)

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that local government officers in Scotland will be paid the 7 per cent. salary increase agreed upon, as from 16th March next in order to put them on a par with local government officers in England and Wales.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement as a result of the representations concerning the Government's decision to forbid payment of the wage increase due to local government employees in Scotland.

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the pay award to the national and local government officers in Scotland, following representations made to him.

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a further statement about the withholding of the properly negotiated pay award from local government officers in Scotland, following recent representations made to him.

Mr. Ross: I have nothing to add to the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on 15th February, and the hon. Members for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) on 2nd February.—[Vol. 741, c. 104–5; and Vol. 740, c. 159–60.]

Mr. Mackenzie: In view of the widespread dissatisfaction and even anger caused by the decision to withhold the increase, and the comparatively small saving involved, would the right hon. Gentleman not consider having another look at the question with a view to reversing the earlier decision?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that it is not quite so easy as that. Where we have specific criteria laid down for a particular period, any departure from it affects not only those people immediately concerned but those other millions who have been caught in the same way in Scotland, England and Wales. The matter is just not so easy as the banging of the nationalist drums we have heard over the past days suggests.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that any local authority which decides that it is obliged to pay the increase on 16th March is legally entitled to do so unless and until the Government take powers under Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the powers available to


the Government under the prices and incomes policy, a policy which was accepted by the House. I hope that hon. Members opposite will do nothing to encourage local authorities to flout the wishes of the House and the country generally.

Mr. Monro: Has the right hon. Gentleman been to see the First Secretary of State about this grave injustice, and if so why have his representatives been so ineffective?

Mr. Ross: Decisions by the Government are decisions by the whole Government.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the Minister aware that the decision is very bad, and is inexcusable discrimination against Scotland? Will he not agree that to honour the Scottish wage claim, as the English claim was honoured, could not possibly be regarded as a breach of the prices and incomes policy? Will he reconsider the question as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that, and he should read the White Paper covering the period of severe restraint. The notification of the claim came to our Department a long time after the notification of the English claim. The English one was on 4th March and the Scottish one on 27th May. The employers suggested that we might require further information, and we did. That was supplied on 17th June. We gave them the answer on 8th July and told them that it was unsatisfactory. The claim was thereafter caught by the standstill and, because there was no commitment before 20th July, fell into the same category as hundreds of thousands of other people whose wages were frozen—railwaymen, miners and all sorts of other workers. It would be quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to say that we could single them out and give them special treatment without creating comparative injustice to others.

Mr. W. Baxter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer would seem to indicate that he is splitting hairs in the matter? The facts are simply that other national agreements are put into operation on a national basis. While there were certain delays in the Scottish claim being put forward and approved, which puts local authorities in Scotland at a grave

disadvantage compared with their counterparts in England, we cannot tolerate that any longer and the position must be rectified as early as possible.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is wrong to say that the claim was put forward late by the Scottish employers, and that they were the people who indicated to us that it was exactly the same as the English one, because it was entirely different. It is a very complex grade and it implied an increase of 5½ to 6 per cent. for a one-year period, with no guarantee that it would last any longer. It was not the same as the English one.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that it is openly alleged that the reason for the lateness in the presentation of the Scottish claim was advice of officials of his own Department? Can he say if that is true?

Mr. Ross: I think that the dates I have given demonstrate that there was no delay on our part. The notification came to us on 27th May, and the authorities suggested in their letter that we might require further information, which we certainly did, because one thing in it was misleading. Further information came on 17th June and they were notified that the claim was unacceptable, for the reasons I have given, on 8th July.

Sir F. Maclean: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to take any retaliatory action against local authorities which go ahead and pay their employees the increase due to them on 16th March?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Conservative Government and he can answer that question himself. No responsible Minister could give any such guarantee.

Mr. Dewar: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that concern has been expressed about this difficult matter on both sides of the House? Does not he also agree that the situation is not being helped by the hysterical competition among hon. Members opposite to produce the most eye-catching headline possible, irrespective of the merits of the case? Does not he agree that this does nothing to help N.A.L.G.O.'s case but merely creates the wrong kind of atmosphere in


which consultations and discussions can be held?

Mr. Ross: More than N.A.L.G.O. are concerned. There are other unions as well. I do not think that the intervention of hon. Members opposite were ever intended to be helpful.

Mr. Noble: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, whether he is right or wrongs there was some delay in the presentation of N.A.L.G.O.'s case? This may or may not have been due to his Department or to the Department of Economic Affairs or to some other Department, but does not he think that this is a first-class case for the increase to be allowed, if any increases are to be given? Does not he recall that, in a shipbuilding case, the Government—and I agreed—changed their rigid rules?

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the circumstances were entirely different in the adjudication of that case. We have to appreciate that in this case the difficulty stems from the fact that, traditionally, there have been different and separate negotiations. I do not blame N.A.L.G.O. for that, but I do blame the Scottish employers, the local authorities, which have always insisted on having separate negotiations in respect of these workers.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Buchanan—Question No. 15.

Mr. MacArthur: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies and the insulting comment in one of them—[Interruption.]—I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should give notice in the conventional way.

Mr. Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Slum Clearance

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the rate of

slum clearance in Scotland from October, 1964; and what was the rate of slum clearance in the same period prior to October, 1964.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: 31,679 slum houses were demolished or closed in the two years after 1st October, 1964, and 26,320 in the two years before that date.

Mr. Buchanan: I thank my hon. Friend and I am delighted to know of the considerable improvement that has taken place under this Government. Is he aware that considerable improvement can still take place, however? Will he pledge himself to do everything possible to rid Scotland of its slums?

Dr. Mahon: Yes, Sir. The first thing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did on taking office was to arrange for a new slum clearance circular to be issued. We are in the third and final year of that programme and we hope to do much better in the next three years.

Scottish Housing Advisory Committee

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee was set up; how many subjects the Committee has investigated; and what aspect of housing is being investigated now.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: My right hon. Friend reconstituted the Committee in May, 1965. It has completed a report on "Scotland's Older Houses" and a study of local authorities' methods of allocating tenancies. It is examining the housing needs of industry, and the management of local authority houses. It proposes also to study the environmental aspects of local authority housing schemes.

Mr. Buchanan: In view of the tremendous interest shown in the work of this Committee, why was it allowed to lapse for a period?

Dr. Mahon: Our predecessors could answer that question. I am informed that the Committee was abolished in 1951 as an economy measure, but I suspect that it was not done for economy of costs but for economy of ideas.

Seals (Control)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware


of the damage by seals to fishing on the east coast of Scotland; and what action he proposes to prevent it.

Mr. Buchan: Yes, Sir, I am aware of reports of damage done by seals to salmon, cod and nets. Measures to control grey seals in the Orkneys have been taken in the last five years. My right hon. Friend will consider future action in the light of the advice from the Seals Sub-Committee of the Natural Environment Research Council. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend has told the hon. Gentleman in the past, fishermen are free to kill seals without permits between 1st January and 31st August each year.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only salmon netting but white fishing has been severely damaged and that the damage on the East Coast of Scotland amounts to £50,000 a year? The evidence is that the seals come from the Farne Islands. Will he make the strongest possible representations to his right hon. Friend that proper control should be exercised at the source of the trouble—where these seals come from?

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman will recall the answer given to him a week ago in this House. Of course, my right hon. Friend is in close contact with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to discuss this question. But the situation is not entirely within our control. Discussions are going on with the National Trust. We are aware of the problem concerning the Farne Islands.

Murders

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many murders took place in Scotland in 1966; and what were the comparable figures for 1965, 1961, 1956, and 1951, respectively.

Mr. Buchan: Thirty cases of murder were made known to the police in 1966. The figures for 1965, 1961, 1956 and 1951 were 32, 14, 13 and 9.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the tendency, particularly in the last two years, for the number of murders to increase significantly, will the hon. Gentleman arrange an early meeting with chief constables and others who might be able to find ways and means of bringing the figures

down? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it was a grave error of the Government to abolish capital punishment?

Mr. Buchan: The discussions which the hon. Gentleman suggests have been going on for a long time. Of course. we have been having this kind of discussion and of course everyone finds any murder a cause of concern and disquiet. But I do not think that the final words of the hon. Gentleman were very helpful. There is no indication in the small range of figures so far over a short period of time that his conclusion is correct.

Traffic (Edinburgh)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the most recent survey was made of the origin and destination of traffic approaching Edinburgh.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The most recent full survey of traffic approaching Edinburgh was made in June, 1960, but I understand that the Corporation has carried out local studies since then.

Mr. Stodart: In view of the fact that, since the full survey was carried out, the Forth Road Bridge has opened, would it not have helped the discussions taking place on the Edinburgh ring road and the future use of that road if a more detailed survey had been carried out since the opening of the bridge to see whether there was any change in traffic habits?

Dr. Mabon: My right hon. Friend is aware of two local studies. One concerned the origin and destination of traffic in central Edinburgh and was made in the following year—July, 1961. A further study was carried out following the opening of the bridge. This matter is before a public inquiry—the quinquennial review—in respect of these traffic figures and the hon. Gentleman will recognise that my right hon. Friend must await the report and judge the review on the basis of the facts that Edinburgh Corporation claims support the case.

British Summer Time

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in favour of or against continuing Summer Time throughout the year.

Mr. Buchan: In the course of the review announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 20th October my right hon. Friend has received representations both for and against continuing Summer Time throughout the year from a variety of interests. They will be studied along with the representations received by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other Ministers.

Mr. Stodart: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when this matter is being considered, the Secretary of State will pay considerable regard to the fact that, if Summer Time were to be continued all year, it would mean most people having to go to work in the dark in Edinburgh and Glasgow from November until March?

Mr. Buchan: As one who went to, and returned from, school in the dark during many winters in the Orkney Islands, I recognise that aspect, which will be kept in mind.

School Places

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in the provision of school places in Scotland; and what are the numbers in primary and secondary and further education places.

Mr. Millan: As the Answer includes a number of figures, I am circulating the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend. Will he ensure that the necessary progress now going on will continue and that by 1970 we shall have sufficient places, while realising, of course, that the school leaving age will be raised that year? Can he give an assurance that the local authorities will use expediently the money allocated to them to build the schools so urgently required?

Mr. Milian: I am glad to say that the school building allocations for 1967–70 have been considerably increased compared with the present allocations and we are, of course, encouraging local authorities to take up these allocations as quickly as possible.

Mr. Younger: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the drastic drop in the starts on school building last year as

revealed in the Scottish Education's Department's Report? Is this not very distressing?

Mr. Milian: The hon. Gentleman is a year out of date because he is referring to the 1965 Report. When he sees the figures for 1966 he will not have the same cause for disappointment—if, indeed, it is disappointment that he is expressing.

Following is the information:


I. SCHOOL PLACES COMPLETED





Places completed*†





Primary‡
Secondary


1966
…
…
24,153
30,184


1946–66
…
…
374,471
350,194


* Including places in temporary accommodation.


† Including places provided in grant-aided schools in projects started before 1964.


‡ Including nursery places.




II. PUPILS AT SCHOOL IN JANUARY, 1966




Education Authority
Grant-aided
E.A.+G.A.


Primary*
…
598,847
9,066
607,913


Secondary
…
271,035
12,557
283,592


Total
…
869,882
21,623
891,505


* Including nursery pupils.




III. STUDENTS IN FURTHER EDUCATION COLLEGES-SESSION 1965–66


Full time
…
…
…
…
17,709


Day release
…
…
…
…
53,476


Other part-time
…
…
…
…
80,302


Total
…
…
…
…
151,487

Nurses (Recruitment)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present position with regard to the recruitment of nursing staffs in the hospitals of the National Health Service.

Mr. Millan: The effective number of nursing staff in Scottish hospitals on 31st March, 1966 was 32,793. This is a higher figure than ever before and represented an increase of 4·8 per cent. over the figure for 31st March, 1965. The national publicity campaign to encourage recruitment is continuing.

Mr. Hamilton: While thanking my hon. Friend for that information, may I ask him to consider giving an overtime payment to nurses, in order to encourage them into mental health hospitals, where they are urgently required?

Mr. Millan: Payments for overtime are made at the appropriate grades, but the kind of matter that my hon. Friend is now mentioning is really a matter for the Whitley Councils.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the hon. Gentleman give any estimate of the number of student nurses who are going to England for their training?

Mr. Milian: No, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will put down a Question about this, I will try to give him an answer.

Hydro-Electric Board Dams (Flood Prevention)

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he is having with the Hydro-Electric Board in order to reduce the risk of flooding below the Board's dams.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Board is taking part in the discussions to which my right hon. Friend referred in his reply of 8th February to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston).—[Vol.740, c. 337.]

Mr. Hamilton: While thanking the Minister of State for that reply, may I ask whether he can say whether he will take powers to bring in a Bill enabling farmers and householders who suffer severe damage as a result of flooding to receive compensation?

Dr. Mahon: My right hon. Friend is reviewing the existing legislation which is included in the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1958, and the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act, 1961, to see whether any further powers for flood prevention are necessary.

Mr. G. Campbell: Is the Minister aware of the importance attached to this matter in areas which could be affected, and will he ensure that all practicable precautions will be taken?

Dr. Mabon: Yes. Although much of the flood warning system is primarily a local responsibility, my right hon. Friend will certainly consider, at the end of the discussions in the North, what needs to be said by him to the other resposible authorities.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: Is the Minister aware that there is general satisfaction in the Conon Valley area at the way in which his Department has got down to work on the embankments there? Is he further aware that there is very grave concern about the future and that many people there are anxious to know what is being done to inquire into the causes of the flooding? Can we expect some decision shortly, as a result of the discussions now going on between the various Departments?

Dr. Mabon: My right hon. Friend is much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks in the first part of his supplementary question. I should like to assure him on behalf of my right hon. Friend, who has visited these areas and has this same experience that he is certainly anxious to know what the discussions will bring forward, so that he can consider the matter further.

School Leaving Age

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now defer the raising of the school leaving age from 1970 until such time as adequate staffing, curricula and buildings are assured.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an assurance that it is still his policy to raise the school leaving age in 1970.

Mr. Millan: It remains the Government's policy to raise the school leaving age to 16 in session 1970–71. All practicable steps are being taken to ensure that the necessary preparations are made.

Mr. Steel: Does the hon. Member recognise that while the principle of raising the school leaving age to 16 is supported by the whole House, there is grave concern in Scotland, among parents and teachers alike, that this desirable principle should not override an efficient system of education for those up to the age of 15? If it is regrettably the fact that there are inadequate curricula, buildings and staffing to implement this decision in 1970, does he not agree that it would be far better to postpone it?

Mr. Millan: I realise that there are other problems involved, and I think that the biggest problem, as the Government


have said on many occasions, is to do with the supply of teachers. However, if we are to wait to do this until the conditions are absolutely ideal, we shall never do it at all.

Mr. Brewis: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Roberts Report on the distribution of teachers could be a tremendous help to education in Glasgow? Why has the hon. Gentleman put off making a statement or implementing this Report?

Mr. Millan: I am not aware that we have put off making a statement or delayed the implementation of the Report. We have had various representations about it and not all of them have been unanimous. We are now considering these and will give a decision as soon as we can.

Mr. Carmichael: Is my hon. Friend aware that most hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, are very anxious that the Government should hold strongly to the idea of raising the school leaving age in 1970–71? Is he aware that the only way in which we can ultimately establish proper educational equality, up to early leaving age, is by giving children a proper curriculum for four years after transfer from junior school to senior school?

Mr. Millan: We are making improvements in the curriculum, in anticipation of the raising of the leaving age, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the educational reasons for raising the age limit are overwhelming. In particular this is necessary to prevent premature leaving of children who would benefit from extra time at school.

Scottish Economy

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will issue a further White Paper on the Scottish economy.

Mr. Ross: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and himself on 21st December.—[Vol. 738, c. 310.]

Mr. Campbell: As the Government have publicly announced that the National Plan, in many of its figures and assumptions, has been invalidated and

needs revision, will the Secretary of State now "get with it" and start a revision of the Scottish Plan?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should "get with it". The targets we laid down for Scotland were realistic, and what required to be done still needs to be done. The strategy outlined in the Plan is right, and that strategy is going on very well in relation to the new industry moving into Scotland. It may be that some of the items will take a little longer, but that does not mean that a radical change of targets or strategy is necessary.

Highland Development Board (Eastern Cairngorms)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the west side of the Cairngorms is eligible for special assistance by the Highland Development Board whereas the east side of the same group of mountains is not; and if he will make a statement on the future development of this area.

Mr. Ross: The Board's powers relate at present only to the seven crofting counties. But as the whole of the eastern Cairngorms is now part of the Scottish development area, projects there are eligible for assistance under the Local Employment Acts and other legislation.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Secretary of State aware of the tremendous potential for tourist development of the Beinna'Bhuird area, which is particularly important at the moment in view of the overcrowding of winter sports facilities in other areas of the Cairngorms? Does he not agree that it would be only right and proper that the eastern Cairngorms should be eligible for exactly the same sort of help for which the western side is eligible?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that for the first time the eastern Cairngorms, as a result of action that we have taken, is eligible for assistance under the Local Employment Acts, and entitled to the loans and grants in respect of what is done in that area.

Building Industry Employees (Local Authority Membership)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware


that, due to the increased employers' contributions in respect of National Insurance, holiday credits, the effects of the selective employment tax and the high overheads coupled with the reduced hours of effective employment, employers in the building industry are becoming more reluctant to release or employ people who are members of local authorities; and what action he intends to take to prevent this limitation of opportunity of building workers from serving on local authorities and other public boards.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend has no evidence to this effect.

Mr. Hunter: Would my hon. Friend agree that this is a real problem among certain workers in industry who are members of local authorities? Would not he agree that something should be done to encourage employers to let their employees away, because, if not, local authorities will find themselves without good and qualified local authority members?

Dr. Mahon: My right hon. Friend quite accepts that expression of view. He expects building trade employers to act as reasonably in this matter as other employers. However, he has no evidence to the effect of my hon. Friend's Question.

Hospitals (Smoking)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is on his instruction that special rules are being operated by hospital authorities in Scotland for patients smoking in geriatric wards; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: In March, 1964, my right hon. Friend's predecessor issued to hospital authorities guidance, which had been endorsed by the Scottish Health Services Council about smoking in hospitals. It indicated that smoking by in-patients should be discouraged, though not prohibited, but a less restrictive attitude was justified in psychiatric and geriatric units. Recently my right hon. Friend asked hospital authorities to continue the policy of restricting smoking in hospitals, but he sees no reason to modify the previous guidance in relation to geriatric units.

Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great controversy about the

no smoking ban in the Milesmark Hospital, Dunfermline? Would he not agree that a ban of this kind on male, patients in bed, even under supervision by visitors and staff, is causing real discomfort to the patients? Would he investigate this matter?

Mr. Millan: I shall certainly investigate what my hon. Friend has said. As I have stated, there are special circumstances in geriatric hospitals, and obviously a complete ban on smoking could cause considerable hardship to confirmed smokers. Certainly we have no wish to see that happen.

Historic Buildings

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in each of the last five years in the statutory listing of historic buildings.

Mr. Ross: With permission I will circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
In total during the last five years some 1,600 buildings or groups of buildings have been statutorily listed, involving notices to some 13,000 separate owners and occupiers.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that enough progress is being made? Does not he realise that the distinctive nature of Scottish domestic architecture in towns is being destroyed before our very eyes, and that this is doing great harm to the tourist industry? Cannot he try to do something more about it?

Mr. Ross: When I point out that of the 1,600 buildings which I mentioned nearly 1,500 were listed in the last two years, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have done a lot better than was done in the preceding years. We have had this power since 1947. Prior to 1962 the number listed was 173. In 1962, for instance, when the hon. Gentleman was more directly concerned with this matter, none at all was listed.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Historic Buildings Council may have difficulty in finding money to preserve some of these buildings when such huge sums are required for perhaps two items like Culzean and


Brodick Castle? Would not he consider it desirable that rather large buildings like Hatfield, Culzean and Brodick Castle should be taken out of the jurisdiction of the Council and be statutorily listed?

Mr. Ross: That is an entirely different point. The point of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) concerned the protection given to the listing. It is a very difficult job, first because of the nature of the staff required to do it, and, secondly, the difficulty in describing the buildings, which involves a search through the Register of Sasines; and, thirdly, the number of notices which must be issued, having traced all those people with an interest in the building.

Following are the details:


BUILDINGS OF SPECIAL ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC INTEREST


STATUTORY LISTS ISSUED IN LAST FIVE YEARS


Year
Number of items
Approximate Number of Notices issued to Owners, Occupiers, etc.
Areas


1962
…
Nil
—
—


1963
…
65
100
Dundee ("A" buildings); Parish of East Kilbride (part of which later became a burgh)


1964
…
54
1,200
Edinburgh (part)


1965
…
670
6,300
Burghs of Stirling and Perth; Dundee (other buildings); Edinburgh (part)


1966 (and January, 1967)
…
809
5,600
Burgh of Inveraray; Glasgow ("A" buildings); Edinburgh (part) Aberdeen

Certificate of Education (Biblical Studies)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will ensure that biblical studies are included as an examination subject for the Scottish Certificate of Education.

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend has received representations as to the need for an inquiry into the whole field of moral, spiritual and religious instruction in schools. Until he has been able

to consider this matter fully and the wider issues which it involves, he would prefer not to make any approach to the Scottish Certificate of Education Examination Board regarding the question of whether an examination in religious knowledge or biblical studies could or should be instituted.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: When may we expect a decision on this matter?

Mr. Milian: I am not able to give a precise date at the moment. We are well aware that there is a good deal of interest in this matter, but it is very complicated, not least from the statutory point of view.

Conveyancing Legislation and Practice (Committee's Recommendations)

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when a decision will be taken as to the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee on Conveyancing Legislation and Practice; and whether he will seek to strengthen their proposals for the rationalisation of the present system of feu duties by preventing the creation of new burdens of this nature.

Mr. Buchan: I have nothing to add meanwhile to the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) on 20th December last.—[Vol. 738, c. 280–1.]

Mr. Dewar: Would my hon. Friend accept the need for haste in this case? Would he not agree that, of the 65 recommendations of the Halliday Committee, 43 were described by the Committee as being capable of immediate implementation without long consultation? Would he give an assurance that the Government will not wait until the Hendry Report on long-term registration of title is upon us?

Mr. Buchan: We are discussing this matter with various bodies. We await their observations, which should be coming in by the beginning of April. We are not dragging our feet in this matter. We recognise the urgency of the question and will deal with it when we can.

Trunk Roads (Fencing)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce legislation to make the fencing of trunk roads in Scotland obligatory.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: No, Sir.

Sir J. Gilmour: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that these roads were built at the time of the horse and cart, and that it is extremely dangerous not only to sheep but to people travelling on the roads to have unfenced trunk roads in the motoring age?

Dr. Mabon: As the law stands, and subject to the court's interpretation, highway authorities are not responsible for providing fences to prevent animals from straying on the roads. The question of civil liability for damage done is at present under consideration by the Law Commission.

Roads (Expenditure)

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual average sum spent on roads in Scotland from 1951 to 1966.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: The total sums spent in the last 15 local authority financial years amounted to £313·79 million, which represents average annual expenditure of £20·92 million.

Mr. Doig: Is my hon. Friend aware that this expenditure, while we realise that it is increasing, is still not nearly enough and that one of the things necessary to attract industry to Scotland is better communications and particularly better roads?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir. But the average under the previous Government was £18·318 million as against our present average over two years of £37·83 million.

Mr. David Steel: Would the hon. Gentleman undertake to consider specific projects for road and bridge building in the light of the economic development plans for the different regions of Scotland? Will he give them priority accordingly?

Dr. Mabon: These matters are being considered, and I have no doubt that an announcement will be issued shortly.

Agriculture

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the present condition of the agricultural industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ross: The Annual Review of the economic condition and prospects of the agricultural industry is now under way and its outcome must be awaited.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fact that the Review is under way should not have inhibited him from at least saying whether he was satisfied with the present state of the industry in Scotland, which has had one of the most difficult years ever, with one of the worst harvests, one of the most severe credit squeezes, a depressed market in beef and lamb, and a shaken out barley crop? Will the Secretary of State make sure that these points are taken into account in the Price Review?

Mr. Ross: Yes. I think that the real purpose of the Question was revealed in the latter part of the supplementary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer it."] It will be answered when we come to the Price Review and when the result of that Price Review is determined. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have had debates on agriculture when I expressed myself in relation to the kind of weather we have had, and the effect of this and of other things on the farming industry.

Mr. Stodart: Would the right hon. Gentleman subscribe to the realistic views expressed in the debate by his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh)? Would he also subscribe to the views expressed by the National Farmers' Union who in the Farming Leader of January said that the Government had knocked the whole heart out of the industry?

Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, had we taken the advice of himself and his right hon. Friends, there would have been no industry, far less a heart.

MALTA

The Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the following statement.
I have sent a message to the Prime Minister of Malta welcoming the communication I received from him at midnight in which he informed me of his readiness to hold early negotiations in London with the British Government. I invited him to come to London early next week for these negotiations about the phasing and consequences of the rundown of British Forces in Malta.
As the House will have heard, Dr. Borg Olivier, in a statement to the Malta Parliament last night, said that the Malta Government would not proceed with the amendment of the Visiting Forces Act. This, as I have informed Dr. Borg Olivier, is a welcome and helpful development. During my visit to Malta, I explained to Dr. Borg Olivier that we could not agree to negotiations if the administrative measures against the British Forces were to continue. The Maltese Government were not able to give me a final reply on this point and are still considering the matter. I very greatly hope that, to enable the talks to take place, the Malta Government will be prepared to ensure that normal conditions for our Forces will be restored.

Mr. Maudling: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. We on this side of the House are equally anxious that these talks should take place and hope that the necessary conditions will be fulfilled for that purpose. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall want at a suitable time to examine once again the policies of Her Majesty's Government which have led to this extraordinary and tragic situation?

Mr. Gordon Walker: We would welcome at any time such an examination. and we would be very confident about its outcome.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House are grateful to him for the tact and patience which he must have shown in his talks in Malta? Can he say a little more. since so much has already been published, about what concessions he offered? May

I also ask him if he is aware that we hope very much—those of us who are friends of the Maltese people—that their Government will accept these concessions as a reasonable basis for negotiation without in any way lessening our sense of the urgency of major cuts in defence expenditure.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I thank my hon. Friend very much for his opening words. The major point was that I said that we would be ready to discuss in a very sympathetic way, when negotiations started, a fairly radical rephasing of the proposed run-down, the effect of which would really be to give ourselves and Malta a much better breathing space in the first two years, because there would be less unemployment in that time, in order to get the economy geared up and job opportunities created. We found, after listening to his arguments, that an extension of the run-down into the fifth year would help this rephasing very substantially. That is the basic point which we said that we would be prepared to discuss with him in the negotiations.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while these protracted negotiations take place, the economy of Malta is being jeopardised, with cancellation of tankers going to the Dockyard and so on? Why, if the Government are now prepared to rephase the evacuation of British troops, did they not do it in the first place to avoid all this trouble? Would he impress on his right hon. Friends that, if any troops have to come back, they have to come back from Germany and not Malta?

Mr. Gordon Walker: On 'the last point, we have decided that. whatever may happen elsewhere in the world, it is proper there should be a run-down in Malta in the general strategic interest of the country. I very confidently hope that these negotiations will not be prolonged. The reason why we have at this stage said that we would be prepared to discuss the rephasing of the rundown is that in the course of argument we were persuaded that this was necessary, as we had not originally thought, in order to make very much easier the solution of the economic problems that would come upon Malta. If we had not budged, we would have been called


"hard-hearted monsters". Having budged, we are called "pusillanimous people who run away".

Mr. Dickens: While all of us want friendship with Malta, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House very much regret the implication in the statement he has made this afternoon, which seems to imply that there will be further needless additional military spending in Malta over a prolonged rephasing of this exercise? Is he further aware that this will be interpreted as a sign of weakness by the West German and Singapore Governments, and that it will make it very much more difficult for us to make definite cuts there in future?

Mr. Gordon Walker: There are in many ways unique features in our relationship and our agreement with Malta. My hon. Friend is exaggerating very much the effect that this rephasing would have over the period of four years upon the intended run-down, and I am sure he would not wish us to stick to a decision which would have involved much greater hardship and unemployment than our present proposals. I am sure that anyone who works all that out must agree that we have, broadly speaking, got it right.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have got it just right now, is not that an admission that they had got it just wrong up till now?

Mr. Gordon Walker: Only on the basis that one makes up one's mind and enters negotiations refusing to listen to what anyone tells one, or to look at the facts and figures. On that basis, we could have acted as the right hon. Gentleman would have liked; but, in fact, we listened to the arguments which were put to us in the course of these negotiations and talks and we came to the conclusion that there was considerable force in them and they could be met by this rephasing. I am sure this was the right, sensible and fair thing to do.

Mr. Bellenger: As it now seems likely that a settlement will be made on the five-year basis, did the Maltese Government suggest that period when previous negotiations were entered into by my right hon. Friend's right hon. Friends.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We have not said that the run-down would go over five years but into the fifth year. There is a difference. I do not think that the Maltese Government made this particular proposal to us. They made proposals which would have amounted to a permanent postponement of the run-down altogether. It was a different kind of proposal.

Mr. Fisher: Although the Government's handling of this matter has been inept and ill-judged until very recently, will the right hon. Gentleman allow many of us, on this side of the House as well as on his own, to congratulate him on the successful outcome of his visit to Malta? We hope that he will continue in charge of Commonwealth affairs for some time to come. Will he also note our view that we hope very much that the Government of Malta will now co-operate on the basis of the new suggestions which he has proposed?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am grateful for that very helpful intervention.

Mr. Barnett: Does the statement mean that we shall be continuing military defence expenditure in Malta which the Government admit to be unnecessary? If so, would it not have been better if we had treated this, as it should have been treated, as a matter of aid and not mixed it up with the question of defence cuts?

Mr. Gordon Walker: There is sufficient aid to meet the problems. The question raised by the impact of the run-down was simply the rate of unemployment which it would create and, therefore, the capacity of the Maltese, with us, to use that aid to absorb unemployment. I think that it was right to continue some payment in order to moderate the impact of unemployment on a very small economy and to enable the aid which we are giving to cope with the problem. More aid would not solve the problem. The rate of increase of unemployment is the essence of the matter.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Egyptian forces have been exercising on the Egyptian-Libyan border? Is he aware that we have a treaty of friendship with Libya, the Anglo-Libyan Treaty of friendship and mutual assistance? Can he assure us that when our Forces in Malta are run


down we shall still be able to honour that Treaty?

Mr. Gordon Walker: Of course, we are aware of all those factors, and we are confident that, with the dispositions which we propose to make, we can carry out our obligations.

Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that the aid which Malta wants for both financial and emotional reasons is the stationing in Malta of part of our strategic reserves? Might it not well be that this would be the cheapest form of aid which we could provide? Will my right hon. Friend make quite sure that this is not a Departmental dispute in which we try to cut military costs, which are unpopular, instead of cutting aid costs, which are popular?

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Maltese Government did not make to us the proposal which my hon. and learned Friend suggested. Now that he has mentioned it, it is one which we will, of course, take into account as a possible line of action. We will consider it. There is no Departmental dispute in this matter. We must make this general run-down in the stationing of troops which were needed for the purposes of our defence agreement with Malta.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman now approach this matter with an open mind, following what he has just said? Will he have another look at the strategic value of stationing at least some British Forces in Malta, which is and always has been the lynch-pin of the Mediterranean?

Mr. Gordon Walker: The run-down which we have proposed will leave some forces in Malta.

Mr. Dalyell: Now that the position is fluid again, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the question of educational expenditure to create employment, details of which were sent to the Department a long time ago?

Mr. Gordon Walker: Yes, of course we will. This is one of the things, together with similar kinds of expenditure, which I discussed with the Malta Government. I am glad to say that they are now able to raise quite considerable local loans out of their own resources for much of

this expenditure. That is one of the ways of finding money for it.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Liberal bench welcome the new situation which seems to be developing, and, in particular, welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be teaching the Government how great nations should talk to small? Can I ask three specific questions? How much will the rephasing cost? Has the right hon. Gentleman accepted a moral obligation on behalf of the British Government for 6,000 jobs? Will he make sure, as far as he is able, that the new agreement is written in clear and explicit terms and means the same thing to both sides?

Mr. Gordon Walker: We could have come to an agreement very early if we had agreed to formulae which meant different things to the two sides. It was for this reason that I had such long talks. I was determined that there should be clarity about any agreement which we reached. At this stage I cannot give figures and quantities, because those are matters for negotiation. I had to tell the Maltese Government that I could not give them figures of that kind because I was not negotiating, but we will put before them answers to questions of that kind in the course of the negotiations and, when the negotiations are over, we will, of course, fully inform the House about them.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there can be no real independence for so small an island with so large a base on it and that, therefore, the majority on this side of the House fully accept the view that the base must be run down? Is he aware that most of us will accept that adding another year is something which we are, I think, prepared to support—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—if the consequence is that the situation of the Maltese people can be thus eased? Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Prime Minister of Malta will be bringing with him the Leader of the Maltese Opposition?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I do not yet know whom the Prime Minister of Malta wants to bring with him. He can bring anyone he wants, but I do not know whom he has decided to bring.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on abandoning Prime Ministerial practice in the matter of reaching agreements? Secondly, is he aware that his statement will be welcomed on this side of the House primarily as an earnest of the Government's intention to put right some of the harm which they alone are responsible for creating?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am quite sure that, after the party points have been scored, there will be universal support in the House for this.

Mr. Hector Hughes: As my right hon. Friend has very properly said that Malta is a unique case, and as some supplementary questions have linked it with Germany and Libya, will he give an assurance that he will continue to treat Malta as a unique case for emotional and other reasons?

Mr. Gordon Walker: Certainly, within the framework of the statement, I am limiting myself altogether to the Malta problem.

Mr. Wall: Is it not now clear that the root cause of this unfortunate dispute was the Government's failure to enter into consultation with the Maltese Government at an early stage? I join in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman personally, but may I ask him whether these discussions will include not only the level of British troops remaining in Malta and economic support for Malta, but the future of the Dockyard?

Mr. Gordon Walker: Certainly. The root cause of this trouble goes back a good deal further in time than the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Employment (South-West)

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 10th March, I shall call attention to unemployment in the South-West, and move a Resolution.

National Energy Policy

Mr. Varley: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 10th March, I shall call attention to the need to establish an integrated national energy policy based upon indigenous fuels, and move a Resolution.

European Economic Community

Mr. Richard: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 10th March, I shall call attention to the desirability of Britain's early accession to the European Economic Community. I will hopefully move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

LEASEHOLD REFORM

Bill to enable tenants of houses held on long leases at low rents to acquire the freehold or an extended lease; to apply the Rent Acts to premises held on long leases at a rack rent, and to bring the operation of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 into conformity with the Rent Acts as so amended; to make other changes in the law in relation to premises held on long leases, including amendments of the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act 1920, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Anthony Greenwood, supported by The Prime Minister, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Frederick Willey, the Attorney-General, Mr. James MacColl, Mr. Robert Mellish, and Mr. Arthur Skeffington; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT POLICY

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister, may I announce to the House that I have so far the names of 28 back-benchers who want to take part in this debate? Hon. Members can help the Chair and each other if they make their speeches reasonably brief.

3.50 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I beg to move:
That this House approves the proposals contained in the statement on Transport Policy (Command Paper No. 3057).
No one is more pleased than I am that this debate is taking place. It is seven months since the White Paper on Transport Policy was published and I am sorry that there has not been an earlier opportunity of debating it. In the White Paper we outlined the structural, administrative and financial changes needed to match the technological changes in transport that are taking place. It is right that the House should examine and discuss these changes because transport is vital to our national well-being.
The theme of the White Paper is that we need a co-ordinated and integrated transport policy. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) has asked me more than once what I mean by this. The concept is a mystery to him. To us on this side of the House it is self-evident. It means, first and foremost, that we must plan transport developments in relation to other developments and to each other. The Ministry of Transport must become a planning Ministry working closely with all the other planning Ministries. That in itself is revolutionary.
Conservative transport policy had a very different theme; insofar as it had a theme at all. As far as I could make out, the transport philosophy of the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), it was this: transport must obey laissez faire commercial principles and if the growing use of the private car knocks public transport for six, so much the worse. So we have had the shrinkage of our railways, bus and underground ser-

vices running into the red, commuter queues growing, rural areas cut off, mounting traffic congestion in our towns and on our roads.
The philosophy was bad enough in itself, but what made it disastrous was the failure of Conservative Governments even to begin to provide adequately for its consequences. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) would have done a little better. He set up a study group to give a new look to Conservative transport policy. It has now produced a report, which once again has no coherent theme. It is merely a catalogue of unco-ordinated measures, none of which incidentally is new. Indeed, we in the Ministry had been making progress on the most important of them before the hon. Gentleman's study group was even set up. The Economist has dismissed this report, what it calls this
rag-bag of unrelated suggestions
as a "non-plan".
The truth is, as the Economist has indicated, we need to do some hard thinking and planning if we are to enjoy —rather than be swamped by—the private car. As a Socialist Transport Minister, I would be the last person to belittle the benefits of the private car. I know how much it has enlarged the freedom and enjoyment of millions and I would like to see its pleasures enjoyed by millions more. But the implications of this are pretty terrifying, whether for the use of our national resources, for our environment and the countryside, or for life in our towns.
The very democratisation of the private car—in which I believe—compels us to come to some fundamental decisions about the principles which should govern our transport policy. It is these principles and policies which we outline in the White Paper and on which the detailed plan we are working out ready for legislation is based.
The first is that planning, to be realistic, must be related to the resources available. It is the simplest thing in the world for the Opposition to pledge itself —on paper—to dramatic increases in expenditure on road building—and that is why the hon. Gentleman is going to do it this afternoon.


Hon. Members opposite are very good at building roads: when they are in Opposition. It was a rather different story when they were in Government. They had no roads programme worthy of the name until 1960—nine years after they came to power. And then it merely limped along. In 1961–62 they were spending only £71 million, just about half what we are spending in the current year. Nor was the M1 exactly a monument to Conservative efficiency. It was built in a hurry on the cheap and we are still paying the repairs bill.
We, on the other hand, have been turning Conservative paper programmes into reality. Equally important, we have been concentrating on improving efficiency and output. We have been overhauling the procedures and techniques of road building so as to cut out delays and waste. A big contribution to this will be made by the new Road Construction Units, the first of which will come into operation on 3rd April in the North-West.
These units will give us the greater continuity of work and more rational use of skilled manpower that we must have for an expanding roads programme. All six units will be in operation by spring of next year. We are also improving our contract arrangements and the economy and standardisation of design, and we are extending the use of critical path techniques. All these steps are in keeping with the Lofthouse report.
But, as we all know, it is no use voting money for roads unless the preparations have been made well in advance for spending it. The best way of speeding up road building is to have a "preparation pool" of schemes which are taken through all their planning and design stages in good time for inclusion in the road programme in any given year. That is why I am authorising for preparation now the first instalment of schemes for the period beyond the present forward programme.
As hon. Members will have seen, I announced yesterday some £200 million worth of new inter-urban trunk road improvement schemes to be put into preparation for the early 1970s. Some of these are planned to be built to motorway standards; and others will be all-purpose trunk roads. Later this year I

intend to announce a further batch of schemes for the pool. We intend to keep up the pace of the essential preparatory work, and further instalments will be added until we have a pool of about £1,000 million worth of schemes over and above the present trunk road and motorway programme.
The target for the urban roads pool is the same as for the inter-urban one—a total of schemes in preparation worth £1,000 million in addition to the £650 million in the existing forward programme stretching to around 1971. This urban list will consist of principal roads schemes in London, the major conurbations and the free-standing towns. I shall be publishing the first instalment shortly. This will enable the local authorities to start preparation on a very large volume of work in addition to the schemes already in the forward programme.
There has been disturbing evidence recently that local authorities have not been able to prepare their schemes quickly enough to take advantage of the money that was made available. This is a problem that must be discussed between my Department and the local authority associations. The new procedure will encourage them to press ahead more urgently because the principle on which I shall draw schemes out of the pool will be: first ready, first served.
These steps show with what vigour we are facing up to the country's road needs. But of course someone without the responsibilities of government can always dream up stirring estimates of what the level of road expenditure should be and then trounce us for not reaching it. I see that the Automobile Association has been studying my White Paper and has drawn up a memorandum commenting on it. Mr. Durie was good enough to send me a copy of it. Yes, there it was, as I had expected, an imperious demand for a vast increase in road expenditure. We should increase our spending on urban roads says the A.A., to £450 million a year between 1970 and 1975, rising to £1,000 million a year by 1980. In addition the new target for the motorway programme after the present one has been completed should be 250 miles a year. All this to be "minimal".
I have made some calculations, and I find that this adds up to an expenditure


of between £5,000 million and £6,000 million for the next decade on urban roads alone with a further £2,000 million on new motorways—quite apart from the trunk road programme which is not even mentioned. This sounds wonderful, but unfortunately the Opposition are constantly calling for equally dramatic increases in nearly every other field: housing, hospitals, education, and so on. Not for them the constraints of priorities. But if one asks them where the money is to come from, back comes the slick answer, as no doubt it will this afternoon, "Set up a Roads Board, float Road Bonds, build toll roads, bring in private capital". Of course, if this would solve our problem, no one would hesitate. But the trouble is that we are dealing here not merely with money, but with physical and manpower resources. It is they which dictate what we can do.
But there is another point I would ask the House to consider, since it is crucial to my whole policy. Even if we were able to find the money for which the A.A. asks, it would still be totally inadequate for the need if we were to consider transport simply in terms of catering for the private vehicle. It has been estimated, for instance, that it would cost at least £10.000 million between now and the 1980s merely to provide our towns with a primary road network. And that would still leave nothing for the motorways and for other urgently needed improvements to our trunk road system. Even the highest bidder, the A.A., does not pretend we can find these sums. Yet these are the facts of our transport problem, and we had better face them.
This brings me to the second principle of the White Paper.
The country simply cannot afford to leave public transport to struggle unaided with the incursions of the private vehicle. No one who has seriously studied the problem believes for a moment that we can deal with congestion in our cities without giving a new lease of life to public transport—or that we shall be able to afford the road space needed if everyone tries to move himself or his goods in individual private lots. This means that we must recognise that public transport has a social rÔle to play and must be consciously and vigorously helped to play it. One of the most

astonishing things about the report of the hon. Gentleman's study group is that it has nothing to say about the social rôle of the railways in our transport system. Yet can anyone deny that in the railways we have an existing national asset that can and must be used to relieve our overcrowded roads?

Mr. Peter Walker: Perhaps the right hon. Lady will get it right for the rest of her speech. There has been no publication of any policy from the group set up by myself. Perhaps she could tell me where she obtained this information. It is not any policy which has been published by this group.

Mrs. Castle: I had this information from a speech which the hon. Gentleman made announcing the outcome of the studies which he and a group of his hon. Friends had been conducting to try to re-create Conservative transport policy. If his speech was misleading, he has only himself to blame, because it misled the Economist as well as myself.
Perhaps his omission from his great transport speech is not so surprising after all, for he would have had to say what he and his Party would do about the 1962 Transport Act on which they once set so much store. This Act embodied the very opposite of the principles needed if the railways are to survive to play their part. First, it cut the railways off from their associated road services, indeed it required them to compete with each other rather than co-operate. It then solemnly instructed the railways to try to "break even" by 1968. Obviously even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey, the author of this Act, did not believe that they could or should completely follow this commercial remit, because even he was forced to reject some of the closures of lines that British Railways were inevitably bound to propose.
So for the past four years British Railways have been living in a twilight world —on the one hand adjured by law to pursue strictly commercial policies, and on the other partially prevented from doing so. As a result we have had a growing sense of demoralisation among railwaymen. They have been attacked for a deficit, some of which they could


not help but incur. The necessary pruning and modernisation of our railway system has been associated in their minds with terms of reference which put no logical end to the process of closures. And management was compelled to spend more of its time on closing down services than on running them efficiently.
In the White Paper we announced a clear break with these Conservative policies; and since last July we have been busy preparing the legislation to implement the new approach. Two things are necessary. First, we must decide the size and shape of the railway network in terms of the needs of our transport system, and not in terms of what is left when strictly commercial principles have been applied. Secondly, we must find a new basis for financing the railways so that we can identify the cost of the services we want them to maintain on social grounds, put those items in a separate social account openly financed by the community, and then give the British Railways Board an efficiency target it can really be expected to meet.
A great deal of progress has been made on both these aspects since the White Paper was published. The Chairman of the Railways Board and I have been discussing with the Regional Economic Planning Councils, with the planning Ministers, and with the railway unions, the basic railway network which we believe must be retained and developed if this country's transport needs are to be met. It is a very different network from that which would have emerged from the logic of the 1962 Transport Act: a stable system of at least 11,000 route miles instead of a network continually contracting down to perhaps 8,000 miles or even less. To take only one example, the South West Region will continue to have a railway spine down to Penzance. On strictly commercial principles, the line would have stopped at Plymouth.
The new railway network map will be published in a few weeks' time. But I want to stress one thing—the lines which we have chosen for development will be those for which the social and economic case is absolutely clear. But that does not mean that the rest will necessarily be closed. It means that the case for their retention must be examined in detail in the light of the normal statutory proce-

dure, including the inquiries into hardship by the Transport Users Consultative Committees.
Here I should like to say a word about these committees. I know that they have put in devoted work, but in this crucial matter of deciding which of these lines the country needs, I feel that we must bring new views to bear—the views of those whose needs have not always been given enough emphasis: the old, the disabled, mothers whose children have to travel to school by train, or who need the services to go shopping and complain that they cannot get a pram on the bus. I am therefore strengthening these committees, and I shall be consulting a wider cross-section of organisations in appointing them in future so that these views can be made known.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: When the right hon. Lady has strengthened these committees, will she make a practice of taking their advice instead of ignoring it?

Mrs. Castle: I think that that comes ill from an hon. Gentleman opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The answer is, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, that their advice is taken fully into account. This is why so many closure proposals have been rejected by me.
This network will bring to the railway industry the stability which it has so sadly lacked.
Good progress has also been made in preparing the new financial structure. This task, as the House knows, is being carried out by a Joint Steering Group set up jointly by the Chairman of the Railways Board and myself under the chairmanship of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris).
The Group is reviewing many aspects of railway policy, not only the identification and costing of the unremunerative services but also methods of improving efficiency, new ideas on management structure and the long term financial prospects, all of which are essential if we are to tackle the problem of the deficit.
The Group's recommendations will be a vital element in deciding policy on


both the financial future of the railways and the treatment of their social obligations. This joint enterprise between the Ministry and the British Railways Board, with help from outside industrialists and from a working railwayman, is a unique departure in reviews of this kind.
The Group has tackled its job with a tremendous sense of urgency. The complexity of the ground which it has to cover is very great and it will inevitably he some time before it finishes its work. But I can tell the House that the Group is making good progress and I am very grateful to all its members for the hard work they are doing.
The Opposition has announced that it is voting against the White Paper tonight. In doing so, is it voting against the policy for the railways which I have outlined? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have the courage to say, because the country has a right to know.
If we are committed to maintaining an extensive railway network, it must be developed technologically to its limit. The worst answer would be to keep it and let it stagnate technically. We are all delighted with the success of the London Midland electrification scheme, and the Board will be putting to me shortly proposals for its extension from Weaver Junction north to Scotland, which I shall consider urgently.
But development must not stop there. As a result of research carried out by B.R. over the past few years, we know that it is technically possible to conceive of speeds of 150 m.p.h. with full automatic communication and control, with better riding and suspension, greater comfort and attractiveness. To exploit these possibilities calls for a research and development effort greater than we have known before.
It is the job of the Ministry of Transport—in co-operation with the Ministry of Technology—to stimulate this research and to relate it to a considered research and development programme for transport as a whole. As indicated in the White Paper, we have been working on that programme and the main outlines of the priorities in this vast field are becoming clear. It is clear, too, that Britain must devote much greater resources of scientific manpower and of

money to transport technology and research than we have done in the past.
But, on the freight side we already have a technological development which the railways are capable of exploiting to the full—and that is the containerisation of general merchandise. The freightliner concept, whose adoption we owe to Lord Beeching, can help to carry the railways into the modern age, but the keynote of containerisation is that it simplifies and unifies movement by road and rail.
This, I would point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead, is where integration comes in. It will be quite impossible for our publicly-owned transport system to exploit the freightliner's potentialities to the full, as long as there is the separation of its road and rail freight services dictated by that ideological monster, the 1962 Transport Act——

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Castle: Many other hon. Members are waiting to speak and I do not want to take up too much time. The hon. Member might catch Mr. Speaker's eye later.
This divorce of road from rail services just does not make transport or commercial sense. Integration is not just a shibboleth: there are positive commercial advantages in having one organisation with general sales responsibility across rail general merchandise and road haulage.
I shall, therefore, take steps to reunite our publicly-owned road and rail services through the National Freight Organisation, which will be created by my new transport legislation. A great deal of progress has been made in working out the structure and powers of this organisation. I have given a great deal of thought to the proposal put to me by the T.U.C. that I should re-create a British Transport Commission responsible for integrating road and rail services over the whole field, but, after careful consideration, I have rejected this because I believe that different forms of integration are required for regional and local passenger services and for national freight services.


Moreover, I do not believe that the creation of a large, monolithic body is the best way to promote the integration which I am so anxious to see. The N.F.O. will, therefore, be a separate, publicly-owned corporation, responsible directly to me. It will take over all the road haulage assets of the T.H.C., British Rail's cartage fleet and such of the freightliner assets—depots, equipment, containers and so on—as it needs to enable it to provide a wide range of freight services.
It will, therefore, be able to offer the customer a door-to-door service of great flexibility, a combination of road and rail or throughout by road, as appropriate. It will have a financial stake in the success of the freightliner and work closely with the British Railways Board with the help of a Freight Integration Council whose composition and terms of reference I am now considering.
With my encouragement, the N.F.O. will pursue an expansionist policy. It will actively promote voluntary acquisitions, as the T.H.C. has done, though the road services it acquires will be fully integrated into the N.F.O. If the hon. Member for Worcester calls this "back-door nationalisation", so much the worse for his own theories. Our publicly-owned transport has as much right to expand as any other enterprise—if it can do it by being enterprising. I do not intend to give the N.F.O. a freight monopoly, but I do intend to give it an equal chance.
One of the main purposes of the N.F.O. will be to get more freight from road and on to rail. Without this, we shall never cope with the mounting traffic on our roads. This is why the argument over open terminals is such a tragedy, not least for railwaymen. Yet their suspicions are understandable. They are a hangover from the days when the railways were being sacrificed to the laissez faire polices of a Conservative Government, when "integration" was a dirty word and no railwayman felt secure.
It is my job to unravel those suspicions —and it is certainly hard work. It is my job, also, to remove real anxieties: such as the fear that Tartan Arrow's company train might divert traffic from B.R.s own liner train. But that is a different issue from the open terminal. Railwaymen want integration—and I want to give it to them; but in return I have a

right to insist that the freight-liners are fully used. I shall be hammering this point home when I meet the N.U.R. Executive again next Tuesday at their invitation.
But the point where transport problems make the biggest impact for most people is in our cities. Here, there is no single, simple remedy. But the ingredients of what must be a package answer are surely obvious: yes, we must have better roads and I believe that, in our forward road planning, we must give urban roads a bigger share than they have had before. But, even if we spent astronomical sums on road building, that would not be an enduring answer, to say nothing of its effects on life in our towns and cities.
Traffic management has a vital part to play, too. It can help considerably to keep traffic flowing, and I have made it clear to local authorities that, when they put their road schemes to me, I shall want to be satisfied that they have an effective traffic management plan. In return, I am prepared to give them wider traffic powers.
I see that the hon. Member for Worcester is advocating the creation of traffic commissioners. This is rather ironical in view of the fact that it was his Government which took the traffic management powers for London away from the centralised unit in my Ministry and conferred them on a complex of local authorities. The answer to this problem does not lie in a phrase or a gimmick. It lies in seeing that local authorities have power to act and the trained manpower to carry out the traffic engineering we need. And we are dealing with both of these points.
But traffic management is not just painting more white lines for lane markings, creating one-way streets or banning right-hand turns. To really bite on the problem it has got to serve two objectives; the restraint of traffic to fit the road space available and the revitalisation of public transport. We really must control the use of the private car at peak times and in congested areas and we must be ready to examine any potential method of doing so—from extended parking controls to road pricing.
At the same time, we must restore public transport to its key rôle. Of course, these two interact. Traffic congestion is one of the main causes of unsatisfactory bus services, irregularity,


"bunching" and all the familiar miseries. Real traffic management means giving priority to public transport—urban clearways, "bus only" lanes and so on. And real town planning means planning for traffic movements as well.
The ultimate solution, as the White Paper pointed out, lies in the establishment of single authorities responsible for land use, highways, traffic and public transport policy over an urban area and its hinterland. But fundamental changes of this type raise far wider considerations than transport. They are still being considered by the Royal Commission on Local Government, and in any case would take many years to carry out. I cannot wait till the 1970s. That is why I am proposing to set up conurbation transport authorities as a first step towards the integration which we shall propose in our Transport Bill.
As the House knows, I have visited the main conurbations in the past few months to discuss this proposal and I am glad to say that the response of the local authorities has been most encouraging. On Merseyside and Tyneside, in the Manchester area and the West Midlands they know perfectly well that transport must be planned over a wide area and that road-rail services must be effectively integrated at last. It is because I believe that this integration must be geared to local needs that I prefer to give the job to transportation authorities, controlled by local people, rather than to nationalised area boards; and various alternative ways in which this might be done are outlined in a memorandum to the local authorities concerned, of which I have placed copies in the Vote Office in case hon. Members wish to study it.
The tasks of the conurbation transport authorities will be not merely to reorganise existing bus services on whatever basis of ownership may be required, or to provide such inducements as modern interchange facilities, "park and ride" points, co-ordinated road-rail timetables and all the other urgent needs. They will also be to look ahead to the next 10 or 20 years and to the new types of public transport we shall need new underground or overhead railways, monorails or other forms of rapid transit. They will be helped in this by the new types of Exchequer grant referred to in the White Paper—and, for the first time in our

history, this Government are prepared to pay capital grants for these public transport infrastructures, another revolutionary break-through.
London, of course, is the biggest of all the conurbations and the one where traffic problems are most acute. In one sense, London is already half-way to having a conurbation transport authority since public transport is in the hands of two nationalised bodies—British Railways and London Transport—while local government has been reorganised in the G.L.C. But the vital link between public transport and local control is missing —with results that are not very happy for either side. As we all know only too well, London Transport's difficulties have been intensifying as traffic congestion increases, fares rise and services decline. Yet the decline in public transport adds to the problems of the G.L.C.
I believe that we shall never break out of this vicious circle until public transport in London becomes much more closely linked with the local authority which is also responsible for planning control, highway programmes, traffic management and parking policies. I am able to tell the House that that is what the Government have decided in principle to do. I am delighted that at its meeting in December the G.L.C., on its own initiative, declared that it was prepared to play a leading rôle in the establishment of a conurbation transport authority for London—subject, of course, to satisfactory financial and administrative arrangements being agreed, but recognising that this would fully involve the Council in the finances and policies of the London Transport Board. I am now pursuing discussions with them on these lines urgently in readiness for legislation next Session.
Meanwhile, we are faced with the short-term consequence of the vicious spiral of decline into which London Transport—especially the buses—has fallen in recent years.
In the middle of last year Parliament approved the Transport Finances Act. This enabled us to cover London Transport's expected deficits by Exchequer grants up to £16 million up to the end of next year. This sum was calculated on the best assumptions that could be made about price levels, labour costs, increases in productivity, the possibilities


of improving traffic conditions and the likely levels of fares. In normal circumstances, and on the basis of these estimates, we would have expected the Board to be going to the Transport Tribunal to ask for fares increases about now.
However, the Government do not think it right for the London Transport Board to introduce or apply for fares increases at the present stage of discussions about the future organisation of transport in London, which may provide us with more fundamental solutions.
I have, therefore, asked both the London Transport Board and the British Railways Board to withhold certain minor fares increases which were approved by the Tribunal in July last year but which have still not been brought into operation because of the prices standstill. I have also written to the chairman of the London Transport Board requesting him not to submit an application for further increases to the Tribunal for the time being. I have made a similar request to the chairman of the British Railways Board about the consequential increases which it would also have applied for if London Transport had won an increase.
I have given the two chairmen my assurance that the Government will find means of providing such additional financial support as may now prove to be needed. But this will be on the understanding that our willingness to continue this support will be reviewed in the light of negotiations about the future reorganisation of London Transport.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: If the right hon. Lady thinks that it is all right to subsidise London Transport, why does she think that it is wrong to subsidise transport in the counties, including Dorset?

Mrs. Castle: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has failed to follow what I have been saying. I agree—and I have stated this in my speech—that responsibility for public transport should be the responsibility of local authorities and local conurbation transport authorities. That is why I am now in discussion with the G.L.C. about its having a closer association with the finances and operations of the London Transport Board. It is in order to put public transport in its

proper context in each case—that is, in the context of other local activities, which can affect its viability so much—that we are now entering into these discussions both on conurbation transport authorities and with the G.L.C.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: Is it the right hon. Lady's intention that the conurbation transport authorities should operate the services?

Mrs. Castle: Yes, certainly. If the hon. Gentleman cares to study the memorandum that I have put in the Vote Office he will see that the proposal about which I am now in consultation is for a joint policy board with control held in the hands of the local authorities concerned. It will have general financial and policy control over a professional operating board which it will appoint.
There is one further matter on which I must touch. The French Minister of Equipment, M. Pisani, and I have issued a joint statement inviting private interests which wish to take part in financing or providing for the construction of the Channel Tunnel to get in touch with us. This will enable us to assess the extent and the nature of the interest in participating in this scheme, and it marks a further step forward in this important project. I have placed copies of the statement in the Vote Office in case hon. Members wish to study it.
I am only too conscious that there are innumerable aspects of the White Paper on which I have not had the time to touch—our ports, problems of rural transport, road safety, the future of the railway workshops, and many more. On all these we have action to report, and I am asking my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to deal with as many of them as there is time for when he winds up the debate. I hope, however, that I have given the House a grasp of the principles on which we have founded our transport policy, and a clear assurance that we are now well advanced with the preparation of the Transport Bill which will turn those principles into law. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Mr. John Hynd: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I ask her a question on a point for clarification?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The right hon. Lady has already sat down.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: The right hon. Lady started by saying that she was very pleased that at last, seven months after the White Paper was published, we had the opportunity to debate it. The cause of that long lapse of time is in the hands of the Government, and it hardly shows any particular enthusiasm on the part of the Government that they have left the White Paper for seven months before deciding to discuss it. But there was, seemingly, at least one advantage in waiting for seven months. It was that the right hon. Lady would have time to provide the details of the suggestions, the vague suggestions, contained in the White Paper.
The House will remember how during her first seven months as Minister all questions were brushed aside by her saying, "You must wait for my White Paper". But there is now the disappointment that, having waited for the White Paper for seven months, the questions are not answered. Today, seven months later, having listened to the right hon. Lady's speech, we find that none of them are answered. We still know nothing of the detail of the National Freight Authority, and we still know nothing of the detail of the conurbation transport authorities. All the real fundamental questions one could have expected would be answered have not been answered.
The first part of the Minister's speech was spent, I thought, not in debating the Motion to approve the White Paper, but in attacking the A.A. and the speech I made at Swindon—and I was very flattered that so much time was spent on that.
In the preamble to the right hon. Lady's speech we got a picture of the terrible deterioration that had taken place, the terrible inheritance she had. We had comments that under the Conservatives the train services were being whittled away, as she said, and all hon. Members opposite cheered and clamoured at the thought.
The fact is that for every seven miles of railway closed during 13 years of Conservative Government the right hon. Lady intends to close 10 more during the

period when she is Minister. So all this pose that the wicked Tories close railways whereas the Socialists retain them is shown by the facts to be completely wrong. In fact, the right hon. Lady is now committed to a policy whereby the route miles of railways to be closed under a Socialist Government are about 40 per cent. more than the amount of route mileage closed during 13 years of Conservative Government. So do not let us again have this pose that the wicked Tories close railways and the Labour Government retain them.
The Minister then moved to the road programme. Here, one felt a certain sensitivity, shown by the way in which statistics of the Tory record were quoted for 1961–62 instead of for the last year of Conservative Government, and by the way in which the right hon. Lady stated the great difficulties confronting her. Let us compare records, and let us see what is happening currently. The truth is that in its arguments with the Treasury the Ministry of Transport has lost all along the line. It has suffered almost more than any other Department by the Government's restrictive measures, and I am sure that the Minister regrets this more than anyone.
In July of last year the Government announced £150 million worth of cuts in public transport, and it was seen that £36 million worth fell on transport——

Mrs. Castle: Some of it on the roads.

Mr. Walker: Only £14 million fell on the roads. That made her the first Minister of Transport in post-war history to have her road-building programme cut.
But before that we had £55 million worth of road deferments. We were told that they would be for six months. A Labour Party leaflet published this week said there was deferment for only six months, but as a result of our asking various Parliamentary Questions we know that deferments have not been for six months, but on average, for nearly 12 months. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), then "shadow" Minister of Transport, said that the road-building programme laid down by the Tories was inadequate and that the Labour Party would do very much better, but, in the event, we have had £55 million


worth of road deferments and £14 million worth of cuts.
We now have the Estimates for the coming year. Excluding defence, these show an increase in public expenditure of 11 per cent. One would have thought that in view of the tremendous economic effect of road building, if there was to be an increase of 11 per cent. in public expenditure generally the Ministry of Transport would have done rather better for the road building programme. But not a bit of it—the increase for the road-building programme is 6 per cent. This is the real contrast between Tory policy and Socialist policy. When we examine the last five or six years of Tory Government, we find every year that the increase in public expenditure on the roads was at a higher rate than the increase in public expenditure in general. That is no longer the case. Alas, the right hon. Lady, under Treasury pressure, has lost all along the line.
But, undaunted by the adverse effects that this might have on it, the Ministry brings a new solution to the fore. It was announced yesterday—appropriately; one can never complain of the Government's sense of timing there—that we shall have a preparation pool. I can imagine the glee among those in the Ministry yesterday afternoon when they saw in the evening newspapers the great headlines of the enormous new building programme—much of it appropriately situated in marginal G.L.C. seats—with the details of the schemes outlined, and when their gaze fell on headlines about the great jet age in road building.
What does the "preparation pool" mean? It does not mean necessarily that any one of these programmes will be built. This is not a new technique. The right hon. Lady tried the technique first of all at the Kingston-upon-Hull by-election, when she built a non-existent bridge over the river. Yesterday, she built £200 million worth of roads in a pool——

Mr. Kevin McNamara: As the hon. Gentleman was not there, whereas I was, I cannot help feeling that he has misquoted what my right hon. Friend said. She said, "When the planning is completed, you shall have your bridge." The hon. Gentleman

should have quoted my right hon. Friend directly.

Mr. Walker: I did not quote directly; I did not quote at all. What I said and what the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) knows better than anyone in the House, is that the electors of Hull thought that they would get a bridge. In exactly the same way, electors all over the country now consider that they will get £200 million worth of roads. They have about as much chance of getting them as the electors of Hull have of getting their bridge.
The only thing which can be certain about the preparation pool is that any project in it is not in the road programme. The pool has been created by the right hon. Lady to give the impression that a great deal of road building is going on. This coming weekend, as local newspapers publish details of this great £200 million programme, their readers will think that this will happen; yet they can know for certain that the only thing that is guaranteed is that it will not start before 1971 and may not start at all.
As regards the road-building programme, that is basic to the whole White Paper. It fails to recognise the importance of the motor car revolution and fails to face up to the problems of the country with the prospect of the number of motor cars doubling by 1980. All that the White Paper does is to endeavour to suggest three major new concepts to tackle the problems. For freight, we have a national freight organisation. For passengers, we have conurbation authorities. For the ports and docks, we have nationalisation. Those are the three pillars, reeking with the desire for public ownership, which form the foundation of the right hon. Lady's transport White Paper.
Let us examine how successful they are likely to be and what are their likely effects on improving transport in the country. First of all, let me take the National Freight Organisation. Who wants it? Do British Railways want it? Has anyone ever heard a speech by the Chairman of British Railways saying that what he wants is a national freight organisation? Can the right hon. Lady quote any speech by the Chairman where he said that? Not a bit of it, for the good reason that he does not want one.


The railways and railway men themselves will be very uphappy at the prospect of a National Freight Organisation, because, as the right hon. Lady admits, they are on the verge of a great technological break-through in the freightliner train. That is a concept which will be able to price a great section of road transport off the roads and on to rail. It is a concept which is economic and cheap, and it is the ideal use for the railway system. It will do a great deal to boost morale on the railways as it has ever-increasing success.
We have had the enormous modernisation programme of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), with its tremendous change from the old steam train to diesel within a few years, the enormous investment in new equipment, and tribute has been paid to him for the electrification programmes which he commenced. But the most important concept of all was the freightliner train, because that was a concept where goods could be moved long distances at no cost. Instead of that being the symbol of a great improvement in the position of the railways——

Mr. Charles Mapp: I am loath to interrupt the hon. Gentleman on the subject of freightliner trains, but some of us have very long experience of the railways, and I would remind him that the principle of freightliner trains is one which has been in existence since 1928. There is nothing new about it, except the political jargon used to describe it.

Mr. Walker: Of course there have been concepts of it, and we all respect the hon. Gentleman's wide knowledge of railway matters. However, I am sure that he will agree that the new techniques, the new terminals and the whole concept of a container of standard size travelling on regular schedules should and will bring a lot of new business to British Railways. That is my argument.
Let us face the reality of moving goods from road to rail. I know that many hon. Members with an interest in transport know the facts about it. At the present time, apart from the transit of coal, which is a special factor, 90 per cent. of the freight moved in the country goes by road and not rail. The great majority of it travels very short distances, so much so

that 85 per cent. of the freight moved is involved in journeys of less than 50 miles. For nearly all those journeys, the railways are not a practical proposition. It becomes a practical and sensible proposition for the longer hauls. That is a fact of life. What we want to obtain for the railways is as much as possible of the longer hauls.
The way to do that is not to set up a National Freight Organisation, but to say to the railways that they have a first-class technique here to handle this sort of traffic and that they should go out into the country to obtain all the customers they can, persuade the road hauliers to use their service and make it known to them that if they do not they will not be competitive with those who do, and encourage industrialists to use it. In other words, the railways should be told to integrate not with 5 per cent. of the road haulage industry, which is what the right hon. Lady is doing, but 100 per cent. That is the real difference between the two policies.
What is the purpose of creating a National Freight Organisation? It is to link up British Road Services and the Transport Holding Company. The Transport Holding Company's vehicles carry something like 5 per cent. of the freight. That is all that is achieved by that link-up, unless the National Freight Organisation is organised—which is our suspicion and the only possible reason for its being—in such a way that it undercuts the road haulier who wishes to send his goods by rail and road. We suspect that the overall rate of the National Freight Organisation will be so much below the combined rate of a haulier and the railways that he will not be able to compete, and that, as he cannot compete, it will come along and say, "You are having a tough time. We will buy you up." If that is said when he is having a tough time due to unfair competition, it will be possible to buy him up at a much lower cost. If that is not the concept of the National Freight Organisation it will be interesting to hear of any valid argument for its existence.
I now move on to the conurbation authority. Presumably its purpose is to improve the standard and the cost of public transport. But what is one endeavouring to do with a conurbation authority? Is one endeavouring to create a local


body whose powers are still not defined, whose composition is still not defined, whose relationship with elected bodies is still not defined, whose powers to acquire private bus companies are still not defined and, if it does acquire them, the basis of compensation is still not defined? This is what we are supposed to be debating today—a conurbation authority, with none of these details available to the House. What could be the motive—to improve the integration of schedules? The right hon. Lady knows that this is already done efficiently. If it is not done efficiently already, it would be easy to set up an appropriate advisory and coordinating body to do it, without the programme of acquisition seemingly contained in the right hon. Lady's proposals.
If the Government really are concerned about improving the quality of public transport and improving the cost of public transport, they would not have pursued the type of policies they have been pursuing in recent times. For example, they would not have taken away the investment allowance for buses. They would not have imposed the Selective Employment Tax, which resulted in a large interest-free loan to the Government from the bus companies. The Government, by a series of financial measures, have considerably handicapped the cost.
Now, we hear, there is to be relief for Londoners; they are not going to have to pay, before the G.L.C. elections, the increase in fares that they should pay. This is the great announcement of today, that before the conurbation authority is set up and before the G.L.C. elections Londoners will not have to pay the increase in fares that is due. They will be subsidised by the Government. We now have the happy situation that, prior to the G.L.C. elections, the people in the North who are subsidised for their factories will be subsidising Londoners for their transport. People in rural areas, long complaining about the costs of their transport, will be subsidising Londoners.
The right hon. Lady spoke about London Transport going into the red under the Conservatives. It did not. It went into the red after the Labour Government came to power. This pre-G.L.C. election proposal will not in any way deceive Londoners, because they will know that costs have so risen during the

period of this Government that they are, in one way or another, through the rates or through their taxes, or through higher fares, having to meet the extra cost.
The whole tendency of the White Paper is to give the impression that passenger transport can be subsidised. It vaguely refers to the local people doing it. We heard nothing of that in the right hon. Lady's speech. There was no reference by her to how ratepayers will come in to pay for this so-called subsidised public transport. There was no news of that. The Minister has been round all these conurbation authorities. What conclusions has she reached about the degree to which ratepayers of all these cities and areas should subsidise public transport? Or has she not been willing to face that question?
The third proposal is for the nationalisation of our ports and docks. What a wonderful contribution to the efficiency of our ports and docks this will make. What a dynamic programme. What enthusiasm this must put into all those who use our ports and docks, that in 1970, as we are told, they are to be nationalised. Why 1970? If there are any great advantages in the nationalisation of ports and docks, why not nationalise them now? Why not go ahead now, if this is a proposal which has some practical advantage? If it does not have any advantage, why put ports and docks into a state of complete uncertainty for four years as a result of this proposal?
There are the three proposals—the conurbation authority, the National Freight Organisation, and the nationalisation of our ports and docks. These are not the practical proposals that are needed for tackling our transport problems. The right hon. Lady quoted with glee what the Economist said about a remark I made in a speech at Swinton about practical proposals for transport. She quite rightly searched and found the Economist, which was the only newspaper and the only serious weekly that spoke adversely of my speech, unlike the numerous editorials which followed the publication of the White Paper.
What is needed in transport today are not doctrinaire policies of national freight organisations, of conurbation authorities, of nationalising ports and docks. What


are needed are new roads, better traffic techniques, healthy modernisation——

Mr. Archie Manuel: The Tories had 13 years.

Mr. Walker: Thirteen years in which, my word, these things were done. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, who is well versed in the railways, should examine the investment figures on new plant and new equipment during the years when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey was Minister and compare them with what is happening since. The hon. Gentleman will then see who were the real modernisers and who got on with the job.
In the same way as the Labour Government have tried to impose upon the economy a rigid, fixed position—freeze of incomes, freeze of wages, and, alas, rather less than a freeze of production—so they are moving into the same position on transport. They wish to see the railways frozen to their 11,000 miles, irrespective of future changes in demand or fluctuations which will certainly happen. They wish to see the whole of our freight movement frozen into a great monopoly, bureaucratic organisation called the National Freight Organisation. They wish to see passenger transport handed over to similar publicly-owned monopolies in the great conurbation areas. They do not want to get on with a transport policy which would bring to transport more enterprise, more initiative, more freedom, and much more consumer choice. This is the division between the two parties.
Because the White Paper contains none of the practical policies which are needed but is full of purely Left-wing doctrine which may please—[HON. MEMBERS: "Really."]—alas, he is not here; but the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in an article in Tribune said that the right hon. Lady was the only Socialist at work in Whitehall. I am sure that she accepted it as a compliment. It is because the White Paper is much more interested in political doctrine than in practical policies that we shall certainly reject it tonight.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) had some fun with the White Paper. He praised

the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) for the modernisation programme. I speak as a practical railwayman. Many of us cast some doubts on the sense behind the rush into dieselisation which must have cost the country many millions of £s, though many diesels are lying about awaiting repair. The right hon. Member for Wallasey deserved some credit for the electrification of the line to the Midlands. However, there was another programme up the East Coast of England from London to Newcastle, where the British Railways Board was involved in the cost of heightening bridges and viaducts to cope with electrification. That project was shelved. Much of the expense is still held against British Railways.
I take great encouragement from the White Paper and from my right hon. Friend's speech today. It seems that the thinking at the Ministry of Transport has at last been channelled in the right direction, particularly as the White Paper states that commercial viability is important but secondary. There is also the recognition that all forms of transport must be planned together—road, rail, coastal shipping and air.
Every developed country has a transport crisis at the moment. The United States are turning back to the electric railway. In Toronto and Montreal they are going underground. San Francisco is looking to the monorail. Our cities are being sliced up. My own city of Glasgow is being carved up. Where I reside in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) houses are being taken down and parts are being devastated, all in the interests of the motor car. Flyovers are being built—temples in mid-air for the worship of this new god. We have been sacrificed to the new god of the motor car. The White Paper shows some guts in recognising that some form of restriction must be placed on it. The White Paper concludes, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) concluded in his very well written pamphlet some years ago, that there is no competition between road and rail; the competition is really between private and public transport. My right hon. Friend bases her proposals very sensibly and firmly on that, coming down on the side of public transport.


Nevertheless, the White Paper leaves many questions unanswered and many points requiring clarification. It recognises that railway transport offers major advantages in the provision of fast, safe and reliable services for both passenger and freight. One significant point is that the statutory and financial provisions of the Transport Act, 1962, should be amended. Incidentally, the effect of those provisions was not at all helped when the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in his Budget took 20 per cent. off the tax of motor cars, giving a boost to the motor car when the roads were still inadequate and unable to take them.
The White Paper tells us that the size and shape of the future railway system should be determined, and this will give a firm future to railwaymen and people connected with transport. It tells us also that the Government should assume responsibility for losses on services retained. I have not had an opportunity to study closely what my right hon. Friend has stated in this connection, but I take her to mean this to apply not only in London —the hon. Member for Worcester made some play about that—but in the Highlands and Islands and the rural areas which also need subsidy for their transport. I am glad that there is to be a study of British Railways Board finances and management structure. This has been necessary for years.
Many of the issues to which I have referred are interrelated. Legislative changes are needed, and this is what we look forward to. It is agreed that the provisions of the 1962 Act must be repealed or amended. They certainly require drastic alteration because, so long as they apply, there is no hope of the railways becoming a viable proposition.
Perhaps detailed comment at this stage on the financial structure of the British Railways Board could be thought irrelevant, having regard to what is said in the White Paper implying acceptance of the need for review and revision of financial policy, but, after the comments of the hon. Member for Worcester, I think that some figures would be useful and would substantiate the contention that something must be done to rectify the position of the British Railways Board.
The recurrent deficits cannot be ignored. From 1953, when there was a surplus of £3·7 million, there has been an accumulating deficit now amounting to about £1,345 million. The estimate for 1966 is £130 million overall deficit, approximating very much to the figure in recent years, £150 million in 1962, £134 million in 1963, and £121 million in 1964. These operating results illustrate the fallacy of Conservative policies to resolve the problem. As the full effects of the Tory Act of 1951 were felt, the operating deficits began to increase. Over recent years, covering the era of the Beeching Report and the 1962 Act, the deficits have ranged from £75 million to £72 million.
It would not be reasonable to ignore all the savings from closures. Many of the closures were obviously justifiable, but many of us on this side—there are some hon. Members opposite who agree —have never accepted that curtailment should go to the extent that it has. Even so, the overall savings are not all that tremendous. The figures show that for completed closures since publication of the Beeching Report in 1963, the British Railways Board estimates an annual saving of about £17 million. The major closures have all taken place, so that we cannot expect very much more to be saved from that period. At the same time, there are other aspects which must not be overlooked. There is the additional cost to British Railways of providing and subsidising alternative services, and there is also the terrible cost in road congestion in our cities and elsewhere, estimated by the Road Research Laboratory to amount to £750 million a year—and it will soon reach £1,000 million.
As regards indirect costs, the Board suffered immeasurably from one cause, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser) for recognising, when he was Minister of Transport, that British Railways should not pay the annual sum due on British Transport Commission stock because of money invested in railway track. I could never understand why the taxpayer had to pay money for money invested in railway track when he did not have to pay anything for the corresponding investment in roads, and it is to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton that


this requirement was removed. I am sorry that he did not go a bit further and take away all the other costs which British Railways have to meet. In 1965, for instance, the figure was £179 million £130 million for track and signalling, £3 million for road bridges and level crossings, £6 million for deficiencies in superannuation, plus heavy costs in providing standby public services, commuter services, holiday services and emergency services.
The White Paper speaks of the railways being relieved of the depressing effect of an apparently perpetual deficit but it does not make clear how this relief is to be afforded. Will the British Railways Board start with a clean slate? Will modernisation continue? Will electrification continue, particularly the programme for the East Coast route which was shelved by the right hon. Member for Wallasey? The London-Manchester electrification showed what can be accomplished in this way, resulting, as it did, in reduced B.E.A. flights. There is great need for a continuation of this policy.
It is difficult to comment on the future financial affairs of the railways. Given all that is implied in the White Paper, it is even possible to envisage the railways as simply providing a traction service covering the major trunk routes, and, assuming that road-rail costs are levelled out as a result of the various inquiries which are taking place, there is no reason why what remains of the old railway system should not operate on a profitable margin. Whether this is what we want or not I cannot say at the moment, but it is a question which we must face. The central point to be borne in mind in the proposed study of British Railways Board finances is that everything possible must be done to create an efficient and economic railway system which provides adequate and convenient services at an economic price.
The White Paper shows a determination to fix a definite size and shape for the railway system, implying a recognition of the need to restore stability and confidence to the industry for the future. However, although a larger system is envisaged than would have resulted if the Beeching cuts had been carried to their ultimate conclusion, it is still proposed to withdraw a considerable number of services, as the hon. Member for

Worcester pointed out. My own view, and that of many hon. Members, is that these withdrawals should be suspended pending the result of the studies now taking place and the result of the reviews by the regional Economic Planning Councils. On one day recently, the Secretary of State for Scotland announced a planning group for the Tayside area. The day before, the Minister of Transport announced the closure of an important railway line in that area.
Over the weekend when my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was in Scotland, there was a programme on Scottish television showing that a steamer taking workers across the loch from Craigendoran left ten minutes too late to get the workers there in time. The workers had to hire a ferry and scramble up over planks to get on to the pier and to get to work in time. To my hon. Friend's credit, he refused the railway's application to take off that service, but a case was obviously building up for the withdrawal of a viable service. It is natural that we should wish to have more information and knowledge of why closures are to be carried out. We also need explanations of why enterprises such as the Southampton-Le Havre steamship service had to be withdrawn and then sold to private enterprise, which proceeded to make it a most viable and profitable operation.
There is also a desire to look carefully into closure proposals to see if improvements can be effected, such as operating on a cheaper basis. During the Beeching era, we tended far too much to promote men who were good at closing lines and not men who were good at making lines pay. In all the closures a tremendous reduction in staff has taken place. Between 1960 and 1966, there has beeen a reduction in staff of 167,240. Yet that vast reduction has not resulted in the railways eliminating their working deficit. It has, in fact, increased, and one cannot say that railwaymen are over-paid. They are anything but. The Guillebaud Committee laid down a pattern of comparability for railwaymen, saying that they should be compared with outside industries. At present railwaymen's wages and salaries are 8 per cent. below those in outside industry.
That brings me to the question of liner trains. I appreciate what my right hon.


Friend said about them. Much criticism has been levelled at railwaymen because of their attitude on liner trains. But I would like the Minister and other hon. Members to remember that, although much of railway union policy comes from the Executive Committee, which has been referred to as faceless men round the boardroom table, the opposition to liner trains does not stem from it.
As a Member representing a railway constituency which contains a goods depot —the Sighthill Condor depot—I felt that the railwaymen were being unreasonable and went to speak to them. I have spoken to the district council and to the branches, and I find that the men are determined that the liner trains should be operated by railwaymen. That attitude stems from the fact of the 167,000 men having been made redundant by British Railways although the railwaymen could have blown the British Railways major modernisation programme skyhigh if they had not co-operated.
When the liner trains were envisaged and the terminals were built the railwaymen said, "Here is a job we can do. We have done it with the Condor freight, and we can do this job very well to earn revenue so that we do not have to go cap in hand to the Treasury every time we get a wage increase." That is why they feel so hurt that the terminals are being thrown open so that that wonderful service will be creamed off by the private haulier.
The growth in traffic is not dependent on the terminals being open. As the hon. Member for Worcester said, it is such an excellent service that it could have brought much revenue to British Railways. I seem to remember that the Labour Party election manifesto praised the efficiency of British Road Services and promised a great increase in the number of its vehicles. With British Road Services, the railwaymen could have made the liner train service second to none.
I have a number of queries concerning freight which I should like to rush through. It is proposed to separate the railway parcels and sundries from the rest of railway freight and establish a sundries division. Will that be similar to the workshops division? In their integration and co-ordination, will they

be concentrated in the National Freight Organisation or under a separate organisation? My own feeling is that such an integrated system, cutting out competition, will be too dependent on decisions which can only be taken by a Government, decisions on matters such as subsidies and investment priorities. For that reason, the national freight organisation should have been part of a national transport authority. I take it that the National Freight Organisation will be a corporation set up by Statute and will have a board appointed by the Minister of Transport which will be responsible for capital structure, financial contracts and commercial operation.
Liner trains are bound to be a key part of the new National Freight Organisation, which will own all the terminals, containers and other equipment. I am in some agreement with the hon. Member for Worcester inasmuch as I detect a touch of deviousness in the operation, as probably a way of getting round the liner train dilemma. A number of points calls for consideration on the proposal in the White Paper.
While there is a measure of approval for the proposed integration of our road and rail public sector into the national freight organisation, it is questionable whether the freight authority on the lines proposed will be enough, bearing in mind that there will continue to be competition between the public and private sector. In its excellent pamphlet, the T.U.C. advocated a set-up similar to that under the former British Transport Commission. Another feature under the set-up suggested in the White Paper is the retention of so much power by the Minister, which could lead to considerable danger should a Conservative Government ever return to power.
There is a recognition in the White Paper that the present licensing position is inadequate. Without adjustment and control it is not possible to obtain nationalised transport; there would be only co-ordination. When he winds up, I would like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to give a greater assurance that the licensing question will be looked at with particular regard to the C licence, and whether the whole procedure needs overhaul. It appears to me rather futile to have a body with power to curtail or limit traffic and at the same


time have licensing authorities with powers to give decisions which would nullify the former.
It there not a possible danger of over-concentration of general merchandise into too few centralised depô? The relationship of the British Railways Board to the National Freight Organisation would seem to develop with British Railways simply as a power of traction which would have considerable repercussions on the workers and the members of the trade unions concerned. While I accept the probability of secondment of staff, I would like some assurance that if that were necessary British Railways Board employees would suffer no worsening of conditions in a changeover. It is questionable whether British Railways passenger and freight traffic should be separate. I hope that there will be further deep consideration of that point, and the point that far too little regard is paid to the efficiency of the British Railways Board.
There are two railways workshops in my area. One of the omissions on which my right hon. Friend touched and which affects me and my area rather acutely, was the omission of any mention of British Railways workshops in the White Paper. If we are to have a National Freight Organisation, that seems to imply that the motor vehicles and so on will have to be repaired. In the event of the British Railways road motor fleet being taken over, it is logical to assume that that new body would wish to take over the organisation which services it, that is, the road motor repair and overhaul shops. The alternative is that it will die out and that road workshops will take over.
If servicing is still to be carried out by British Railways workshops, the Board will charge the freight authority for the work because both concerns, seemingly. are to be run on commercial lines. I urge that all the restrictions upon British Railways workshops manufacturing for outside industries be removed, and, indeed, that they should be able to manufacture vehicles for other industries and should have the power also to manufacture for export. They are equipped to do so.
The Minister should have additional power to approve decisions made by the Board on all major activities concerning the workshops on maintenance and

repairs as well as on manufacture and production. It would be incumbent upon the Railways Board to ensure that its own workshops were brought up to and maintained in a state of full efficiency. It should be obligatory on the Board to ensure that the workshops are fully occupied and staffed before any work is contracted out to private enterprise. Purchase of materials, components and so forth from outside firms should be resorted to only when it is not practical to produce them in railway workshops, and restrictions imposed on the manufacture of road vehicle bodies, chassis, and so forth, should be removed.
Finally, in the White Paper there is an appreciation that what is required in transport is a "once-for-all" reorganisation. Repeated changes in organisation have plagued the railways. In large measure, these were simply window-dressing with no structural substance. The staffs have been involved in far too many changes in recent years. They need a real incentive to rekindle their interest and co-operation. There must be cooperation and participation by people working in the industry in the decisions taken for the industry—participation at the top level. A concession in these terms was made in the Iron and Steel Bill and a similar assurance must be obtained for the transport industry.
In the White Paper, there appears to be little provision for union representation on the freight authority and certainly not on the Freight Integration Advisory Council, and I ask my right hon. Friend to take another look at that. The White Paper is a step along the road in an attempt to solve the ever-growing problem of the nation's transport, and I welcome it and look forward with some impatience to the Bill.

5.23 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) will not expect me to follow the railway theme of his speech, good though it was, because I want to confine myself to one aspect of the White Paper, concerning the conurbation transport authorities and bus operations. It is an important part of the White Paper, and I deal with this aspect because I am privileged to represent the city of Manchester, which owns


what is one of the largest operating bus groups in the country outside London, while, on the other hand, I have for many years been chairman of the Lancashire united Transport Company, which is the largest single operator of a fleet of buses in the north of England.
I thus approach this as a representative of Manchester, being concerned for the future of that great municipal fleet, and, in my private capacity, as chairman of a large private operating company and obviously I want to see the true interests of the public service vehicle preserved.
I was intrigued by the Minister's speech. It added much to the imaginative embroidery of public transport. It gave us additional castles in Spain—if I might be forgiven the pun. But I saw no practical hope that much that she said could ever possibly be realised in the lifetime of anyone in this Parliament. Let us be frank. So to gild the lily and to promise something that can never be accomplished is a temptaion which confronts every hon. Member. But I was stimulated by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). It was one of the best and most stimulating debating speeches I heard for a long time, and I know that secretly in her heart the right hon. Lady enjoyed it as much as I did.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn for one point he made concerning the railways. The most important and most satisfying thing that has happened in transport in my political lifetime is the electrification of the line from Euston to Manchester, and the credit for that wholly belongs to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) and I am sorry that the right hon. Lady did not acknowledge that.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is contrary to the truth. The right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) is particularly associated with Lord Beeching and the Beeching era. In fact, the electrification idea sprang from Lord Robertson's règime of the mid-1950s, and it was Lord Beeching and the right hon. Member for Wallasey who damned those ideas. Indeed, the right hon. Member

for Wallasey tried to hold up electrification, but it had gone so far that it had to be continued. It was this——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must not be quite so long.

Sir R. Cary: I think it will be acknowledged on both sides that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey was the Minister of Transport who was tactically responsible for discharging the task of electrification of the Euston-Manchester Line.
As I have made clear to the House, I am naturally cautious about the spending of public money and, equally, I am anxious for the protection of the company's purse. I am glad that the right hon. Lady began her speech with the subject of the motor car, because this will be critically important in relation to the operation of public service vehicles. She referred to the Director-General of the Automobile Association whose final shot was his letter in The Times today, which no doubt the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has read.
The figures are so frightening that I do not see how in this small country we can prepare ourselves for the ratio at which the motor car is increasing in numbers. It is the considered opinion of the A.A. that the number of motor cars will double within ten years. At a meeting of the National Trust two weeks ago, evidence was offered that within 25 years there will be four times as many cars in the country while the population will have increased by about 37 per cent. We cannot prepare our country in terms of motorways for this sort of increase. It is not really viable.
The right hon. Lady made no mention of her investigations in the United States, where they have the greatest possible power to expand in every direction, using clover leaves, express ways, park ways and great parking facilities. But I am not so certain that the traffic blocks and jams in American cities are not greater than ours. Perhaps they are more so.
The late President Kennedy, before his tragic death, was so concerned about the decline in public service transport that he sought appropriations from the United States Congress to the tune of £190 million with which to rehabilitate the public service vehicle. We have not


made the mistake of turning our back completely on the public service vehicle. There is a case to he made out in terms of integration and co-ordination for conurbation authorities. In her speech the right hon. Lady implied that we would have to take steps to restrict motor cars and their impact upon towns.
In answer to a Parliamentary Question that I put to the Parliamentary Secretary a little while ago, he said that a work study programme was going on within the Ministry of Transport which would make recommendations as to how the private motor car ought to be restricted. Would it be a general restriction, which would have its impact upon the motor industry, or would it be a particular restriction relating to cities? No doubt the hon. Gentleman cannot elaborate on that theme, but I hope that he will take note of it and at some time will lay the recommendations of the work study programme before the House.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): Perhaps I might take that point now. The purpose of the programme is to study restrictions on the use of the motor car. The hon. Gentleman implied that it might have some impact on the motor car industry. It is not a study upon restricting ownership of the motor car. My right hon. Friend made it plain that the Government do not wish to restrict ownership of the motor car. This programme is aimed at restricting the use of the motor car in highly congested urban areas.

Sir R. Cary: Years ago we had to restrict the public service vehicle, the bus, and we did that by a system of licence plates. The hon. Gentleman and the Ministry are not flirting with this idea at all.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is there not a necessity for the Parliamentary Secretary to enlarge upon what the work study group is to do? Bearing in mind what he has just said, I would have thought that my hon. Friend should ask for a greatly expanded explanation as to what he means by the restriction of the motor car.

Sir R. Cary: If the hon. Gentleman cares to devote some amount of time to my modest point I shall be pleased. I

would like the right hon. Lady to keep to more practicable and realisable courses over the next few years. There is a case to be made for the conurbation authority. While it may not be easy to see any future for the local operator, be he municipal or private in those conurbation authorities, they could play a useful part in the civic life of the community particularly in regard to the regulation of traffic flow within our towns.
The editor of Modern Transport said recently of the conurbation authorities:
It may well be that the easiest way of achieving the desired goals is for the c.t.a. to lay down policy on the area's highways, traffic engineering and public transport facilities within a framework adumbrated by the Government. On the authority there might be representatives from municipal councils, traffic commissioners, operators, unions and public watch-dog bodies, operators would continue to apply their vast experience of operating and enginering knowhow and provide coordinated service to meet c.t.a. requirements. To facilitate the process existing municipal undertakings might be incorporated as companies in which the shares would be owned by the authorities.
That may be a solution to some of the great municipal difficulties existing in the operation of a great fleet. The great Manchester municipal authority has a loan indebtedness of £2,500,000 which has to be discharged. Nearby Salford has practically no loan indebtedness at all. If one is to suddenly seize outright ownership, which was a phrase used by the right hon. Lady in answering a supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), if one is to promote or prompt the conurbation authorities to proceed with the objective of outright ownership, it will be found that those who have no loan debt to discharge will be offended, but one may well entice those who wish to get rid of a colossal loan debt, such as that now being carried by the Manchester Corporation.
In some respects, in spite of what the right hon. Lady implied in her speech, I would say to her: leave well alone. She is talking about things finding their own natural level. This is being done at present. The senior technical officers of my own company work in the closest relationship with the surrounding authorities. How else can we take care of the semi-urban and rural services other than by a cross-subsidisation? All these methods


are well known and well tried, and they are being used by men with the greatest experience of transport.
What we lack, certainly in London, is a great leader in transport, like Lord Ashfield in other days. We are not in the conditions which Lord Ashfield once enjoyed. We have to do this by hard common sense objectivity, and this is what the conurbation authorities will have to get down to. The path that I see is along the lines indicated by the editor of Modern Transport.

Mr. John Page: The right hon. Lady said that the conurbation transport authority would operate all the transport in the area that it controlled. As I see it, it would automatically have to buy up any private enterprise transport and incorporate that. From what she has said, there can be no private operator at the same time.

Sir R. Cary: This would be public ownership by the back door, on tiptoe. If one is to prompt the conurbation authorities to do that, why not be open and honest about it and do it in the customary way? Those primitive methods which were denounced by the right hon. Lady are still being used by her right hon. Friend the Minister of Power in re-nationalising the steel industry. Therefore they cannot be quite so primitive in Government circles. If the right hon. Lady wants to nationalise this industry, let her make a straightforward, first-class job of it, and let the electors, when the time comes, take a decision upon it. I am very surprised that the Minister should expect a responsible Opposition to support this one line on the Order Paper giving blanket approval to the White Paper issued in July last. I hope that the Opposition and the few who sit below the Gangway will come in the Lobbies with us tonight and vote against the Motion.
I should like to put a proposition to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. We know the machinery which the Government have in mind. A Bill is to be produced in about September. It will be mentioned in the Gracious Speech and it will find its place in the opening stages of the next Session. May hon. Members have a more detailed White Paper before that Bill is issued and debated so that we

might have a better debate than we can have on the White Paper before us at present and so that if we disagree with it in any particular we can have the opportunity of putting down a reasoned Amendment which may tempt many hon. Members opposite to vote with us? Let the House have a more detailed study of the White Paper well in advance of the Bill. This would be much more worth while than anything we could ever hope to extract in the generalities of Second Reading debate. We may then not only help the country but help the Government to improve a Bill which I hope one day we shall have the authority and right to issue ourselves.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Harry Howarth: The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) congratulated the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) on his speech. Of the two speeches, I preferred that of the hon. Member for Withington. Certainly the first half of it was far more realistic and more appropriate to the debate than the speech of his hon. Friend, who seemed to me to do nothing but chide the railways and extol the virtues of road transport as distinct from rail transport. He went on to say that the National Freight Organisation would boost morale on the railways.

Mr. David Webster: The hon. Gentleman's hearing differed completely from my hearing on that point. Our anxiety on this side of the House is that the National Freight Organisation will take the freightliners from British Railways. We do not want that to happen.

Mr. Howarth: I was not writing shorthand, but I wrote down fairly quickly in longhand the hon. Gentleman's words. I apologise to him. I recognise that perhaps one should not comment on the speech of an hon. Member who has left the Chamber without informing him, but I have not had the chance to inform the hon. Gentleman. I am attacking, not the hon. Gentleman, but the Opposition's attitude to rail transport. The hon. Member for Worcester said that the new National Freight Organisation would boost morale on the railways. After the 1953 and 1962 Acts, it is about time that morale on the railways was boosted, even if this is not the reason why the National Freight Organisation is being established.


The hon. Member for Withington referred to his interest in road transport. I should refer to my interest in rail transport. Before becoming a Member of the House, I was employed in the railway service for 30 years. I welcome the publication of the White Paper as a comprehensive appraisal of the problems which face not only the railways but transport as a whole. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the thought and care which has gone into its preparation and production.
I am sure that it is extremely useful that we should be having this debate, even though it comes later than perhaps many of us would have wished. However, everybody who talks about transport, or who should be talking about transport, recognises that one section cannot be considered in isolation. Each form has its part to play in the life of the nation. It is only by a sensible policy and the application of that policy that we can adequately plan our national transport services.
Perhaps the difference between many of us who argue about transport matters is on how much emphasis should be given to each section. Although the railways have continued to develop many of their services, others have declined, particularly in freight carryings. While we have seen roads congested not only because of the increase in the ownership of private cars but by the heavy traffic carried by road services, the railways have not been used to the full. This has been a national tragedy. This is a waste of the facilities which are available. The situation can be corrected only by a review of the road licensing system, with each form of transport carrying the traffic which it is best suited to carry. The National Freight Organisation, in my view, will integrate the freight services of the railways and of British Road Services and the collection and delivery services involved. It is a new approach to freight organisation.
There is only one criticism which I would make. As this is to be a separate body from the Railways Board, I thought that it would have been appropriate to establish an authority such as we had formerly under the British Transport Commission to oversee the operations of these two bodies in the National Freight Organisation. My right hon. Friend indicated that this is not in her thoughts at

present, but I hope that this will happen as a result of experience.
I should like to say a few words about the staff, particularly the staff already in the railway service. I wish to comment on reorganisation schemes in general as they have affected them. I am thinking particularly of the clerical and administrative staff, who have been subjected to reorganisation after reorganisation. Schemes have followed quickly upon each other without there being any idea of what was happening. I am sure that no industry can have been subjected to so many changes over the past 10 to 15 years. The management has spent far too much time in introducing reorganisation schemes rather than in trying to get the traffic which should be carried on the railways.
It is interesting to note that in its report on the pay and conditions of British Railway staff, the Prices and Incomes Board referred to reorganisations following in quick succession as policy changed, leaving staff bewildered and dispirited. It went on to say that difficulties over past years and continued contraction of the industry had led to a lack of sense of direction in the minds of management and to insecurity in the minds of the staff.
In her White Paper, my right hon. Friend refers to the fact that because of these past difficulties the fullest cooperation among all concerned has been inhibited. Therefore, is it surprising that the staff should be cynical about the most far-reaching reorganisation scheme of all, to which the Minister has given approval, which has taken place since the White Paper was published? I refer to the merger of the Eastern and North Eastern Regions of British Railways, which has brought gloom and despondency to thousands of clerical staff. Many of those involved in this change have been concerned in reorganisations in the past, and many hundreds will probably be involved in the transfer from London to York, but who can say now that they will not again be moved in a comparatively short time?
I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend can put forward good reasons why this merger should take place. I would have preferred it to have been held up until the Joint Steering Group, under the chairmanship of my hon.


Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, had reported on what is referred to in the White Paper, under the terms of reference for the joint review, as the
suitability of the board's management structure and procedures for the future operation of the system.
I would have thought that that would have been a much better way to deal with the problem than to allow this merger to go through at this time. As a result of the Joint Steering Group it may well be that we shall have further reorganisations in the railway system. Indeed, one might expect it, if the railways are to be improved and used to the benefit of the whole of the community. Therefore, there could be still further reorganisations for this new region and its existing departments.
If what I call the ultra-reorganisation scheme would result in stability for the industry, and if it could be shown that it was the scheme to end all schemes, I feel certain that the staff would accept it. But what they do not accept are the continual changes which have taken place without any apparent advantages either to the industry or to themselves. That is why I wish that this scheme could have been delayed at this stage.
I want to say a few words about closures, because the hon. Member for Worcester referred to the differences in the mileage of line closed under the previous Government and the mileage closed under the present Administration. I will not argue about the mileage of line involved, but far too many of the closures that took place previously were the wrong closures. It may well be that the mileage which my right hon. Friend has in mind will represent what I would call some of the right closures, because surely no one in transport would argue that every branch line must remain open, come what may. We all recognise that there has to be a rationalisation of the system. Provided that the right lines are closed, one would not be critical in that respect.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: As we have similar problems, I am hoping that the hon. Gentleman will plead with his right hon. Friend that under the rationalisation he is calling for she will look with sympathy on the line which connects our two constituencies.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated me. I was going to refer to the Northampton and Peterborough line in which we have so much interest, the line which starts in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and finishes in the constituency of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), passing me on the way. I must say that in railway circles this would be called a "mixed train".
The matter has been ventilated with my right hon. Friend previously, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has himself made representations on this. I do not know how it affects him. I am not really interested in his area—I am interested in my own. In Wellingborough town we are increasing the population by 35,000 from London in an overspill agreement, yet this line has been closed without any apparent consideration of future developments.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Sir Harmar Nichollsrose——

Mr. Manuel: We are all waiting to take part in the debate.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Hon. Gentlemen representing Scotland have more than their say in some of these debates. I do not think that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), of all people, should get irritated. We are talking about the middle of England, the part of England which produces the wealth. I want to support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Harry Howarth) in his plea. If he can keep this line open it will be worth while. Scotland has no complaint at all.

Mr. Howarth: With a Scottish day yesterday and Scottish Questions today——

Mr. Manuel: Once every seven weeks. My hon. Friend should not give way to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) again.

Mr. Howarth: I do not want to get involved in this argument.
Certainly this is one of the lines which ought not to have been closed—I agree with the hon. Gentleman—but the steps were taken under his Government. Everybody knows that once a track has


been removed, it is more than difficult to get it replaced. While saying that we must certainly watch all the closures very carefully indeed, I hope that my right hon. Friend's suggested closure of further tracks apply to tracks which ought to be closed. If not, I am quite sure she will have criticism from this side of the House on that aspect.
I welcome the section of the White Paper which deals with the part that regional economic planning councils can play in more effective co-ordination of passenger services. In the particular instance referred to by the hon Member for Peterborough the bus service for the journey takes twice as long, which means more inconvenience for those who are using it. If bus services are to replace railway passenger services, they must be properly administered, and all these facts must be taken into consideration.
I apologise for having dealt almost exclusively with the position of the railways in the future transport system. I also apologise for the fact that I am suffering from a cold, which has now become obvious to all who listen to me. My having spoken solely about the railway system does not mean that those of us who express greater interest in this than in road transport do not consider road transport to be important. I began by saying that each has its part to play in a properly co-ordinated transport system, and my right hon. Friend can be assured that my criticism of past events does not in any way prevent me from giving her my support in the task which she has set herself to perform. Many people, not only in the House but also those who work in transport, wish her well in what she is trying to achieve.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I thought the right hon. Lady's speech this afternoon was a great disappointment. There was no sign in it that she had grasped the nature of the problem or the fundamental revolution in transport in which we are now involved. All we got from her was the worst sort of backward-looking reactionary thinking. It was a good enough speech, I have no doubt, from a doctrinaire Socialist, but an utterly unworthy one from a forward-looking Minister of Transport. Indeed, her White Paper, with its airy-fairy

theoretical approach, completely out of touch with reality, might well have been penned by the right hon. Lady when she was still a schoolgirl at Bradford, and, unfortunately, since then, like the Bourbon kings, if she has forgotten nothing she certainly has not learned anything, either.
Her object seems to be to squeeze out natural new development and to freeze the pattern of transport into a mould based upon preconceived and utterly out-of-date notions of what is right. Surely the fate of the National Plan in relation to transport should be enough to show the right hon. Lady that seeking to impose solutions simply does not work. Only 18 months ago we were told in the National Plan that the working deficit of the railways was to be abolished in 1970 by three methods: by making progress in closures, by concentrating on the trunk routes, and by co-operating with the unions. The whole three of them have "gone for a Burton." The railways' accounts are now to be divided into two sections, the economically viable section and the socially useful section. How nice it all sounds on paper! But how will it work in practice? How can the railways be made viable when the Government persit in refusing to honour the Prime Minister's pledge made last July to make the liner trains work fully?
It is an absolute scandal, when public money and the public interest is involved, that the Government should give way to vested interests by consenting to the humiliating purchase of Tartan Arrow. The Prime Minister told us, in reply to a Question only the other day, that the right hon. Lady was making progress with the unions. It seems to me that in regard to the national interest all she has been doing is to make progress backwards, and fairly rapidly, too.
Then what about the socially desirable sector of the railways which is to be maintained? How does the right hon. Lady decide which line is socially useful? She has already closed my line, and I should like to know what she intends to do about a neighbouring line which serves her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: She has not closed it.

Mr. Galbraith: Is it to be closed, or is it to be kept open? How does she decide what is socially useful and what is not?]


Does she toss a coin, or does she keep the line open for a friend and close it for an enemy?

Mr. Manuel: She has not closed it.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) keeps saying that, but he knows as well as I do that the station is closed and that therefore I cannot use the line. Who is to pay for all this? We like our railways, but do we like them to the extent of paying about 6d. in Income Tax to preserve the railways as a museum for Victorian transport needs?
This leads me to the vexed question of commuters and public transport in cities. I understand that this, too, is to be subsidised. The right hon. Lady does not seem to be able to think further than "S"—"S" for Socialism and "S" for subsidy. Thank goodness we did not have a Socialist Government in the days of the canals, or otherwise they would have been perpetuated by subsidy and, in consequence, more modern forms of transport would never have been developed.
Why should the public pay for commuters and why should it pay for public transport when plenty of people never even use it? What is the justification for the subsidy? It makes absolute nonsense of the Government's location of industry plans, their desire to get people away from London and the South-East, when they are actually to encourage more commuting and to make it easier for people to commute by having a public transport subsidy.
I must admit that I am thoroughly alarmed by the suggestion that some of the money from parking meters should go to subsidise public transport. Why should it not go to provide betters roads? After all, it is the motorists who are providing the money. One of the great needs is to get a closer relationship between the use a man makes of the road and what he pays for it. What he pays should be used to provide more and better roads instead of having to pass through the greasy hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am afraid that we will never get away from that with the present method of road financing.
It is remarkable that in every single sphere in which the State is trying to

provide a service through taxation there are shortages—shortages in housing, shortages in schools, shortages in hospitals and, of course, shortages in roads—whereas there are no shortages where the customer himself pays directly.
I wonder whether it was for some such purpose as this more direct financing of the roads that the right hon. Lady was so keen on her black box. I wish that she had said a little about that, because what we gleaned from her transatlantic leaks was not very encouraging. She always seems to get into the posture of being anti-motorist. Perhaps she cannot help it. Perhaps it comes from the basic sense of envy which seems to inspire most Socialist thought. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Yes. Envy is at the basis of all Socialist thought. Because she does not drive a car herself, she does not see why other people should, and yet we do not find her going about her business by public transport. She uses a Ministerial car every time. Surely she must realise that if she likes personal transport, other people like it, too. To try to resist the desire for personal transport is to be as stupid as was King Canute in trying to resist the incoming tide. People want cars and people are going to get cars and people are going to use them.
A far more constructive approach than trying to prevent cars from coming into the cities, which is where the problem lies, would be to consider the layout of our cities and our habits of work. There is nothing predetermined about either of those. A couple of hundred years ago there were no large cities and people worked in their cottages spread all over the country. What brought them into tight city units was a technical revolution in the invention of steam power and the growth of factories, but today to a large extent that is all done and finished and is unnecessary. A factory based on electricity can be placed anywhere and increasingly, with the growth of telecommunications, private teleprinters and television circuits, it may be possible for many city workers to work, if not in their own homes, certainly in much smaller units than now, placed throughout the country.
After all, transport is only one facet of the problem of communications, and as methods of communications become


more sophisticated it is less and less necessary to move people about. In the old days, if one wanted to give somebody a message, one had to take it oneself, or get a messenger to take it. Now one picks up a telephone. I would have liked the White Paper to show a proper recognition of the new situation and of the revolution in transport as a facet of communications in general which the new technology now makes possible, but all we have had are further out-moded administrative complications such as the national freight authority.
What on earth is the purpose of this body? To a large extent, transport in this country is already nationalised. There is the Railways Board, which is nationalised, and there is the Transport Holding Company, which is nationalised. Are these nationalised bodies not capable of acting in the public interest? What do they think of the idea? The right hon. Lady did not tell us, but perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what the chairmen of the various boards think of the idea of a national freight authority. It seems most odd that the right hon. Lady should be splitting the operations of the railways into the economically viable sector and the socially useful sector, so that we may know the cost of each, and yet she is to superimpose this new authority so that the country will be quite unable to tell whether the road or the railway section is the more efficient. Furthermore, how does all this tie up with the idea of Geddes which decided most strongly in favour of a free-for-all on the roads?
In none of this does the right hon. Lady pay nearly enough attention to people's desires. She thinks that she knows the answer, and she is jolly well going to impose it, cost what it may in terms of personal convenience, or in terms of economic development. Naturally, to the right hon. Lady, as a Socialist, freedom is a dirty word. [Interruption.] Yes, it is. There is no indication that she has grasped at all the burning desire for freedom for people to use their own cars and freedom for traders to use the method of transport best suited to their business needs and, most important, freedom to develop a new concept of communications which cannot flourish under her totalitarian rod of iron rule and règime.
As has been said many times, the price of freedom and progress is eternal vigilance. After her speech this afternoon, I can assure the right hon. Lady that she has certainly alerted the country to the need for vigilance and she has alerted us in the House to the need to fight her plans every inch of the way. This is something which we will do with great relish.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Tom Bradley: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) made a characteristically entertaining and vigorous speech but it was wholly negative in its approach to the White Paper. That is little wonder, because he is such a fervent admirer of Lord Beeching. I have not had the advantage of reading the famous Swindon speech, but I hope that it contained more constructive thought than we heard from the hon. Gentleman this afternoon. However, I took the trouble to look up some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks in May last year when in a discussion on further financial assistance for British Railways he said:
… if the railways are ever to become an efficient machine they have got to follow the general principles and lines laid down by Lord Beeching."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1371.]
We all know that those methods led to restrictions and closures. The future success of British Railways and their deficits has never lain in the creation of restrictions and closures, but much more in the positive development of rationalisation.
I welcome the White Paper proposals. They represent a carefully prepared and honest attempt to achieve a rational use of our transport resources. I remind the hon. Member for Worcester that our transport problems today are so complex and difficult that they are not capable of solution by a single dramatic move or by a gimmick. We had quite enough of that kind of approach from my right hon. Friend's penultimate predecessor. I am particularly pleased with the way in which the White Paper defines the future rôle of railways in a modern transport system. The Minister, of course, faces a situation which requires urgent attention. On the one hand, we have appalling congestion on the roads and on the other a great deal of spare capacity on the railways, and all the time there is a persistent drift of traffic from rail to road.


Over 35 years ago a Royal Commission on transport said that it was not in the national interest to encourage further diversion of heavy goods traffic from railways to roads, and it went on to advocate a system of control. Surely we have learned something in the intervening years, but the party opposite has learned nothing. Indeed, it is because of their activities that the situation today is very much worse than when the Labour Government attempted to deal with it in 1947. Although the 1947 Transport Act is today remembered more for what it failed to do than for what it did—I refer to C licences—it did try to get sense into the transport complex. But the Conservative 1962 and 1953 Acts struck deadly blows at the prospects of any sensible transport planning.
With the breaking up of the British Transport Commission we lost the potential for co-ordination. What has been the result? We have publicly-owned vehicles taken into private ownership, the breaking up of the Commission and the isolation of the railways. There is a great deal of ill-informed criticism of the British Railways Board and of railway men who have sought to carry out the uncompromising commercial principles of the 1962 Act and yet at the same time try to provide an adequate service for the public. Those are two mutually contradictory aims. Providing an adequate service to the public necessarily means operating unremunerative stopping-passenger services, standby services and surburban services. In the 1965 Annual Report of the Railways Board it was stated that suburban and stopping-passenger services alone were accountable for £70 million out of £132 million, and £60 million was due to payment of interest on central charges on capital.
Therefore, I welcome the appointment of the Joint Steering Group under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to look into aspects of railway finance. The group, I hope, will identify some of these costs and either take them out of the balance sheet in a conventional way or attach a public subsidy to them, leaving the railways with a realistic financial target which they can properly meet. This is in line with the suggestion of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries which

examined British Railways many years ago. Then the railways will become respectable in the eyes of the public and the morale of the staff will be uplifted by the removal of this weight of deficit.
The railwayman feels that he is regarded as a minus quantity in society and he resents this very much indeed. There is a great deal of truth in the 1965 Annual Report of the British Railways Board, which says on page 9:
It is not reasonable that the solid achievements of British Rail should be obscured by depressingly adverse financial results which do not reflect the efforts of management and staff.
I cannot improve on that.
Next, I welcome the White Paper decision to stop well short of the Beeching minimum of 8,000 route miles. The Minister announced this afternoon that she is shortly to publish a map showing the lines definitely to be retained and indicating others over which there still hangs a question mark. I am quite certain that there will be many individual complaints about some of the lines which are still receiving consideration but none of us should lose sight of the fact that if the map is to indicate lines which are definitely being retained on the basis of 11,000 or 12,000 miles of network, which would represent a 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. increase on Dr. Beeching's proposal in 1963, we should be grateful for that.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look very closely at some of the lines which are still left in doubt, because I want her always to keep a feminine suspicion of the Railways Board's methods of accountancy and presentation of facts. I mention an example which has come to my notice recently. I refer to the East Suffolk railway line from Lowestoft to Ipswich. The Eastern Region has just discovered that this line which it originally proposed to close—and my right hon. Friend very properly refused her consent—can now have £90,000 per annum saved on it by revising costs, particularly costs of ticket issuing and collection. Ninety thousand pounds is a lot of money. If the Eastern Region knows that this can be done now why did it not ascertain these facts before listing the line for closure? We know that it was because of the restricted terms of reference of transport users' consultative committees and that they cannot challenge costs but can deal only with hardship.


I welcomed what my right hon. Friend said about enlarging the composition of transport users' consultative committees, but I hope that she will also look at the terms of reference because it is only proper that if the committees are to be retained as an instrument for examining line closure proposals they should be able to challenge the statistics which British Railways put before them. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) present. The Truro to Falmouth line is under threat. It costs £20,000 a year to keep it open. Why is only the Eastern Region carrying out a survey to see how far it can achieve economies? This should be done by British Railways nationally, not by one region. In the West Country many lines could be made to pay if an honest endeavour was made towards that end.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On the Falmouth line, if British Rail had not deliberately altered the timing of trains so that dockers who consistently used the line to get to work found that the times were unsuitable, there would have been a higher return. This is an indication of the sort of action of British Rail in the West Region.

Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend has reinforced the point I was making. Before leaving this aspect of British Railways' working I remind the House that a few years ago the Southampton-Le Havre cross-Channel service was abandoned as being uneconomic. Then a Norwegian firm came in and it is running the service at a profit.

Mr. Galbraith: We have great interest in the hon. Member's speech, but is not this a complete condemnation of the way in which a nationalised industry runs itself?

Mr. Bradley: Not at all. I am making some remarks about the domestic management of certain regions of British Railways. I am not talking about the broad policy of Railways Board management or nationalisation. The network which my right hon. Friend is proposing of 11,000 to 12,000 miles will bring stability to the industry. The new shape and size will be substantial, and it will end the uncertainty which has been hanging over thousands of railwaymen.
But, having decided to have a substantial system, it would be stupid not to

use it. How will it be supported? The passenger considerations have been discussed here this afternoon. Obviously there is a future for fast, clean, and frequent inter-city services on the railways. The London—Crewe—Manchester —Liverpool electrification proves that, as it is yielding a handsome return. When will we have a decision about the extension of this electrification to Glasgow? The present service to Glasgow involves changing engines at Crewe. A full economic utilisation of both engines and manpower needs a through run to Glasgow, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will press this electrification forward if she has now received a request from the Railways Board to go ahead.
I do not particularly quarrel with some of the points which have been raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite about the proposal that local authorities should make a financial contribution to the maintenance of rural lines in their areas. This is done in America, and I think, although it may have to be preceded by a measure of reform in respect of local government finance, it is only right to expect local authorities who have been very vociferous in demanding the retention of their branch line to meet some of the cost if that is to happen.
I have some very serious doubts about the position with regard to freight traffic. I wish to refer to the proposal for a national freight authority which is clearly to be the instrument for co-ordination in the public sector. I hope that its terms of reference will include a rail bias with regard to heavy traffic. The railways are not anxious to keep their sundries traffic. It is a £24 million loss maker, and already my right hon. Friend has initiated discussions between the road and rail parts of the publicly-owned transport industry to see how far they can integrate their sundries services, and I welcome this. There is, of course, a gross over-provision of transport facilities for the sundries type of traffic.
What are the implications of the national freight authority for railway management? I ask this seriously, because I wish to remind my right hon. Friend that in the last 10 years railway management has spent a lot of time creating a traffic management structure involving operating, commercial, and


maintenance sections so that it is securing traffic knowing that it will be moved by services and power which are available.
What is to be the future of all the railway commercial departments under this proposal? Are they to he taken over by the national freight authority? Are they to be isolated or absorbed? I remind my right hon. Friend again that British Railways freight movements have to be planned well in advance to dovetail in with passenger operations. The occupation of predetermined lines of a limited nature means that these railway conveyances must be closely planned well in advance. Who is to decide priorities for the occupation of railway lines—the national freight authority, the conurbation authorities interested in passenger traffic, or British Railways?
It means that there will have to be a careful planning of timetables with cognisance of what is required and what power is available to move traffic which the national freight authority will offer to the railways. This is particularly important since Dr. Beeching many years ago laid down a new concept, which is now well established, that the 20th century unit of rail movement is the train and not the individual wagon. Therefore, British Railways, if they are to be left as passenger operators over long distances, must have perfect co-ordination with the national freight authority, or they will soon be in conflict with it with regard to conveying traffic in view of the timetable planning difficulty.
All this reinforces and adds strength to the B.T.C. structure argument which we have been pressing on my right hon. Friend. It means that we ought to have a controlling body superimposed on the national freight authority and British Railways to ensure proper co-ordination and close working in the interests of real planning.
What is to be the future of the Transport Holding Company? I believe that its present activities call for action now in advance of the legislation. Is it to be absorbed by the national freight authority? If not, action will definitely be needed in another direction. The Transport Holding Company has been making acquisitions of privately-owned road haulage businesses in much the same way as the British Road Services have

been doing for some time, but these acquisitions have not been taken within the ambit of the British Road Services but are being operated under a freight association set up within the Transport Holding Company. The real point is that they are actually competing with each other and in opposition to the B.R.S., who in turn compete with British Railways. Could there be a more absurd situation?

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Mr. J. E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)rose——

Mr. Bradley: I am sorry, but I cannot give way, I have spoken for longer than I intended, and I am coming to the end of my speech.
The situation which I have described is really absurd, and I questioned my right hon. Friend about this on 16th December. I was told that planning machinery had been set up by the Transport Holding Company to promote cooperation in the commercial and operational spheres, and she did not think any direction was necessary. Direction is very clearly necessary in this connection.
My right hon. Friend has already taken the initiative to secure a planned merger of sundries traffic between British Road Services and British Railways. This is a much bigger question which ought to be tackled in the interests of the good name of public ownership, and to put an end to a good deal of the ridiculous waste that is going on because of this unnecessary duplication of activities within the public sector.
Will the national freight authority, which is to replace the Holding Company, I hope, be given a free hand to take over as many private firms as possible? I hope so, because my right hon. Friend must remember that there is more transport outside the Transport Holding Company than within it, and I can see a number of dangers if we leave too large a private sector, because the issue today is not road versus rail, but public versus private transport.
Whatever the outcome of the proposals in the White Paper, I recognise that it will mean yet further changes in the pattern of railway administration, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Harry Howarth) said, railway staffs have become very


well used to incessant change as one re-organisation has overtaken another before any settled pattern could develop, and as managements have struggled to effect economies at the expense of their commercial responsibilities. In the last four years the number of railway staff has been reduced by 150,000. The railway industry has already had its shake out, and the fact that it has proceeded so smoothly with so little rancour and bitterness, unlike what we have found in other industries, is a tribute to the trade unions concerned and to their negotiating and consultative machinery.
On behalf of railwaymen—and I speak as the president of one of the railway unions—I should like to say that I feel that railwaymen will accept further changes in the knowledge that we are to have a substantial railway system, that it will be modernised, that it will be used, and that it will be given a period of stability to show what it can do.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) said that this is an argument of private transport versus public. In fact, it is an argument of modern economic forms of transport against the traditional forms. The hon. Member was disparaging about the Transport Holding Company, but it has made a profit over the last five years of £70 million, thanks to good commercial management.
The depressing thing about the debate so far—apart from the brilliant speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker)—is the dirge of speeches from the back benches opposite. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East was the third back bencher from the opposite side of the House to speak on a Transport White Paper entirely about the railways. We know the responsible position which he holds, but he himself regularly finds the industry a little inconvenient, and I think that he will find that that is the view of most of his constituents. Unless one is a commuter or travels on business, the railways have priced themselves out of the reach of the average person, compared with the economics of running and using a car for oneself and one's family.
In any average business, no one talks about the practicality of putting freight on the railways. They have grave doubts about goods being delivered on time, let alone arriving unbroken. That is the practical and the pressing situation. I was glad that the right hon. Lady at least began by saying something about the road programme and that section of the White Paper. I was disappointed particularly that the section dealing with the road programme was contained in nine paragraphs—Nos. 33 to 42—whereas there are only eight on inland waterways, for which the right hon. Lady has decided there is not much use. In a Socialist White Paper, the subject which interests most people is given no more than nine paragraphs.
I want to look at these eight paragraphs on road and road construction. We have already heard about the movement of industry and population, by encouraging industries to move out and population to move through overspill and other agreements. What do these new industries and new centres of population want? They do not want a new railway service, but an adequate trunk road and motorway links and this is the economic system of transport which the new areas of population must be given.
After all, in these areas, as elsewhere in the country, 90 per cent. of the people will want to go on the roads and 80 per cent. of the freight generated to and fro wants the same thing. They do not want to go on the railways. Perhaps my speech is surprising, as I represent a county where motoring is still a pleasure, but Lincolnshire is now faced with large overspill agreements with Greater London and we want to ensure that the super and excellent road system given us by the Romans and which we are still able to enjoy is modernised to meet new developments of population.
There is in the White Paper an admission that the Socialist Government have inflicted on the road programme a serious standstill and a cut. The right hon. Lady admitted that, in 1964, the Conservative Government spent £180 million on the road programme. In 1965–66, that programme was cut by £2 million. Paragraph 34 of the White Paper makes great play with the fact that the Government will construct 700 miles of motorway by 1970, which is the figure


they give for the necessary mileage, and 350 miles of new trunk road. This falls a long way behind the mileage of motorways which a Conservative Government would have given to the road haulage industry if they had continued—1,000 miles by 1973.
The most depressing facts about the road programme were given in a Written Answer on 14th December last about the anticipated mileage of new motorways under the right hon. Lady's Ministry. These figures were, for 1966, 49 miles; for 1967, 68 miles; for 1968, 39 miles—a really declining scale. This does not make a noise like a dividend to anyone interested in new motorways or improving our transport.
What should the motorway programme be? My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has said that, by 1970, we should have embarked on a further 1,700 miles of new motorway. This is the figure supported by the county surveyors. Look at the current revenue that motor taxation raises, unlike the loss sustained by British Railways. The motor car and motor taxation bring into the Treasury £1,200 million a year, and the right hon. Lady is spending exactly one-quarter of this on new motorways and new trunk roads.
We should consider the forecast of congestion and the number of vehicles on the roads over the next 10 years and the amount of money which will come into the Treasury. I know that the Treasury is against any form of taxation designated for a specific project, but it is good business for the Treasury if it encourages more motorways and encourages people to use road transport more, as it will make a profit on its expenditure.
The depressing thing about the expenditure is that, the Conservative Government having spent so much on getting the motorways going, we will not get the benefit until the system is completed. The system is inadequate now, because we do not have the proper links. It is all very well swishing down the motorway to Slough, but it is not much good if there is a bottleneck in Berkshire, because one cannot get on.
The British Road Federation has made a careful study of roads and resources, which shows clearly that, within the next 10 years, the road and motorway programme could be trebled without calling

for a larger share of scarce national resources. It emphasises something which is mentioned in the White Paper—I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that these points are being urgently considered—that of the improvement importance of contractors' being given longer contracts, in time and length of road works that they are asked to do and the importance of continuity of work, and simplicity of design to keep costs down. This will make considerable savings in construction costs.
We must face the fact that, in the road construction industry, the turnover on capital is much slower than in the building industry. We must ensure that road contractors get a proper return on their capital, because what we want to see in the industry now is a greater use of specialist sub-contractors. We must try —and the right hon. Lady must try—to give those specialist sub-contractors the confidence to buy the new equipment which will help them to keep down construction costs.
Of course, the road contractors are suffering from the general economic climate created by the present Government. Of course there is a reluctance to buy the new type of equipment which they need, and I hope that something will be said in winding-up to give these people that confidence to buy this desperately needed equipment.
If we are to believe paragraph 39 of the White Paper and that the right hon. Lady is to go ahead with speeding up road construction, and having a proper road building programme, and is not just making bogus announcements of further steps to postpone having to spend any money and getting on with building some roads—if we are to believe that she means to build some roads, I should like something categorically said about speeding up the statutory proceedings once a road begins to be built.
I think that hon. Gentlemen are aware that these are known at the moment as the "31 steps", although it is 32 now, when the right hon. Lady cuts the string at the beginning of the road and thus delays the opening for three or four days. I should have thought that the Government could look immediately at the diversion and side-road procedure which the county councils are obliged to go through.


This procedure creates delays of between six weeks and two months in the starting of a project.
One way to speed up the process would be to pay reasonable prices and to prevent objection being created. When considering the building of a new motorway one must think not only of the price of land but also of a fair price to compensate people for their property being ruined or its amenity value being seriously slashed. A case arose in my constituency and I longed to persuade people to object to a project by a nationalised industry. However, that industry has since shown the colour of its money and any objections that there might have been have faded away. If a realistic price is paid for motorway land, that too, will speed up the provision of a proper system of roads.
The right hon. Lady the Minister had such a bad case that she obviously had to persuade her right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to make sure that this debate came on on a day when it is foreshortened because of our morning sittings procedure. The right hon. Lady has, therefore, run for the shelter of a short Parliamentary day, which only goes to show that she is not very genuine in her desire to give this country the trunk road and motorway system it demands.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I agreed with much of the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). It is obvious that he has given a great deal of thought to the subject and that he has considerable knowledge of the country's transport problems. It was a pity that he attacked my right hon. Friend and so departed in the last sentences of his remarks from the high standard which he had otherwise maintained.
We are used to the knock-about speeches which are made by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), although the contributions which they make to a debate of this sort do not advance the subject very far. I hope that they treat their lady friends a little less roughly than they treated my right hon. Friend.
I suggest that the 11½ per cent. lead which the Socialists have over the Tories, as revealed in the Gallup Poll published

in the Daily Telegraph the other day, results from the sort of speeches which those two hon. Gentleman made today.
I welcomed the publication of the White Paper on Transport Policy last July. It is the most enlightened and forward-looking statement on transport we have yet received, for it recognises that all forms of transport must be considered and planned together. Because we had no overall planning previously—apart from such documents as "The Reshaping of British Railways", which attempted to solve the problems of railway transport in isolation—we were bound to come to unsatisfactory and unacceptable conclusions.
The White Paper on Transport Policy represents, in two important aspects, a big advance on previous policy. It is now accepted that some services, though they do not pay their way as required by the 1962 Act, should, nevertheless, be retained on social grounds. This is an important point to accept, particularly since the Ministry is now carrying out research into the relative costs of carrying goods by road and by rail.
I entirely accept the policy outlined in paragraph 19 of the White Paper, which first considers the problem of the size and shape of the basic system and then states that the system should include:
(a) a network of main trunk routes selected for special development linking the main centres of population, industry and commerce;
(b) secondary lines feeding the trunk network, including some to be developed to carry particularly heavy flows of freight;
(c) certain commuter routes in and around the main cities and conurbations;
(d) certain lines essential to the life of remote areas.
I am sure that we all accept that those are the basic principles. The following paragraph states:
The result will be a considerably larger system than seemed likely with the previous policy of widespread closure.
That refers to closures under the 1962 Act. If we do not delay for too long we could create, if we bring these changes about, a new spirit among railwaymen and give them the incentive they need of an assured and worth-while future in the railways.
What is my right hon. Friend's policy on railway workshops? These enterprises are bound up with the social


welfare of many large communities, but the workers in them are becoming disappointed. Many workshops are losing work to outside firms. Others are being closed down while others are not being given the opportunity to tender for outside work. We cannot allow the position to decline further and we cannot wait for full transport legislation to be introduced before dealing with the present position.
I am convinced—and I am in close touch with this problem in my constituency and elsewhere—that the railway workshops could achieve major successes if they were modernised, and introduced shift working over a 24 hour day where necessary. The Labour Party has a pledge to redeem in this matter and I hope that my right hon. Friend recognises that an interim measure freeing the railway workshops from their present shackles is vital if the workers in them are to have a worthwhile future.
I welcome the financial provisions outlined in the White Paper, particularly those applying to unremunerative but socially necessary railway services which, until now, the railway boards have had to maintain. I hope that the size of the deficit resulting from the operation of such services will be made known as soon as possible. The making public of this information will be good not only for the boards but for the railwaymen and the public generally.
Another important financial consideration is dealt with in paragraph 27 of the White Paper, which states:
The Government is considering the possibility that local communities might, as part of the long-term arrangements assume some, at any rate, of the financial responsibility for passenger services whose retention is required for local reasons, if they should decide that the line ought to be preserved as part of the local transport system".
Paragraph 29 states:
The establishment of the new financial framework will require the identification and costing of those services and facilities whose cost should properly be borne and aided by the community".
Paragraph 79 deals with the same problem, and states:
In the Government's view, if help from public funds is to be made available to secure that rural services are provided or continued, the local community should take

its part in determining what services are to be considered as essential and should contribute to the cost".
I can understand what these paragraphs mean, but they raise many questions and reservations in my mind.
can understand national taxation being used to meet transport deficits, but if local communities are to be asked to take on financial burdens because of the geography of their area, or because of sparse population, or because they are island communities, I would most strongly disagree with that policy——

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Would my hon. Friend not accept that this policy will mean that in some rural communities we shall lose all forms of transport? In some rural communities we have no money to pay for these services, and unless this Government are prepared to subsidise them from the Treasury, we shall lose all forms of transport.

Mr. Manuel: Those rural communities with which I am in touch are already spending more on transport than are some of the more lucrative areas.
In Scotland we already meet such transport deficits from national taxation. I do not suppose that the Minister of Transport knows anything about that. David McBrayne Ltd., which operates passenger and freight road services and coastal shipping services on the West Coast of Scotland, receives substantial subsidies each year from the Government to enable those services to be operated over a very wide area. These subsidies have been given ever since 1920–21. In 1929–30 the subsidy was £22,000 and for this year it is estimated at £393,500.
Is it now intended that our Highland communities shall meet the substantial part of this expenditure? I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to say quite clearly whether that is the intention. If it is, there will be massive opposition, led by the Secretary of State for Scotland and, I think, every Scottish Member——

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)rose——

Mr. Manuel: I at once exclude the hon. Gentleman from that remark.
I agree that the present fragmentation and lack of central control of urban


transport militates against rational coordination of transport——

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Sir Harmar Nichollsrose——

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member has interrupted every speech so far, and I will not give way further. He is taking up too much of our time. I usually do give way.
I support the policy that in these urban areas we should have authorities with overall responsibility for transport. We cannot await the results of the Royal Commission on Local Government. This will need at least five years, and the problem is too urgent for that. I welcome the decision that in these areas the Government will promote interim machinery to deal with some of the present defects.
What is perhaps the important part of my thoughts relates to traffic control in the conurbations. All that the White Paper seems to deal with is the unified control of passenger transport services, but we have to realise that we have a terrific volume of freight services within the conurbations themselves. Within them, thousands of small manufacturing industries and businesses are being supplied with raw materials and then sending the finished products by road, either on short haul to rail heads or on long haul right to the customer or to a port for export.
In my opinion, it is quite wrong to unify passenger services without regulating the movement of freight vehicles to the times most suitable for them. I do not think that the daytime, when our streets are full of the normal passenger services plus the multiplying numbers of private cars, is the right time for the intensive movement of freight vehicles. I may meet opposition in many quarters but I believe that the services connected with these businesses and industries should take place in a regulated way during the night, when public passenger services are reduced to a skeleton night service and the private car is almost completely absent from the streets.
In this suggestion I see the only real long-term solution, and I hope that thought will be given to ways and means of bringing it into operation. It would be an immense step forward. Why should not many of the industries presently working during the night take de-

livery of their materials and send out their manufactures during the hours when the streets are clear?
Much has been said about the freightliner service, which has my full support. The more of the long haul freight services we can remove from the roads the better will conditions be for the other road services. I am sure that the great majority of railwaymen realise this, and I hope that the present difficulties will be speedily removed.
Paragraph 82 of the White Paper seems to dismiss coastal shipping altogether from consideration. It says:
The Government sees no reason at present for suggesting any change in the general arrangements under which coastal shipping operates.
Have the Government examined the problem? Have they given it the intensive examination it deserves?
I do not agree with the contention in that paragraph. Our home-based coastal shipping is declining. Far too much is being undertaken by foreign-owned ships. These vessels have freedom to ply between our ports, but our ships are not allowed to ply between ports on the Continent. I should like the Ministry to take action to build up our own coastal shipping. This has repercussions on the smaller dockyards for the building of coastal vessels and for their repair, because the foreign ships go back to ports in their own countries for shipbuilding and repair work.

Mr. McNamara: On that subject, would not my hon. Friend agree that the chartering by United Kingdom shipowners and some nationalised industries of foreign-owned vessels has meant a serious deficit on our balance of payments?

Mr. Manuel: That is true. It is an important aspect, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's very valuable interjection. At the very least our own home-based coastal shipping should be able to expect the protection afforded to their foreign competitors in cargo-carrying between our own home ports.
I fully support the main principles in the White Paper, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will have the very full support of her colleagues in the Government in bringing in the necessary legislation as soon as possible.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask whether he is aware that he began by saying that this was a brilliant White Paper, and then proceeded to make a speech which was in full and direct criticism of it? There is a contradiction there which he ought to explain.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I hope that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) will not regard it as discourteous if I do not follow him in his flights to the north. Such journeys engage my emotions but do not antagonise my intellect. However, I wish to refer briefly to one point which he made about the effect on Britain's balance of payments of chartering foreign vessels. It cannot be denied that that has an effect on our balance of payments, but it cannot be condemned out of hand without a careful analysis of the balance of payments effect of all the feasible alternatives of bringing in the same commodities. That might lead him to conclude that the first alternative is the right one, not only from the narrow point of view but also from the national interest.
I turn now to a point which was made by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley). He said that this was a debate about public versus private enterprise. I want to deal with that in passing because, in this context, as in many others, it can become and is becoming this evening one of the most massive and sterile irrelevancies which afflict the House of Commons.
Within the last few months, I have visited three institutions, which I choose at random to illustrate my point. The first is the Port of Gothenburg, the second is the Port of Rotterdam, and the third is the new Italian project known as the Rivalta Scriva. Those are all outstanding examples of enterprise. Gothenburg is a port authority, so it is in a sense a public enterprise. Rotterdam is a municipality and that, in a sense, is a municipal enterprise. The Rivalta Scriva project, on the plains of Genoa, is wholly a private enterprise. All three projects are enterprising.
Can we not extract the essential noun "enterprise", and ignore the adjectives "private", "public" and "municipal" when considering this and many other

subjects? They close the mind to thought, in much the same way as a bad television programme switches off the minds of people all over the country.
I want now to refer to three principal topics. The first is the docks—an important subject in this White Paper—and their relationship to the national economy. The second is the decision to build a new grain terminal at Tilbury rather than on the Isle of Grain. The third is the relationship between transport efficiency and documentation. In that context, as I shall probably not have sufficient time, I would refer in passing to the very serious failure of this country to implement the T.I.R. Convention to which we are a signatory. That will have serious effects on everything which is common to the interests of both sides of the House in implementing the flow of unit loads.
On the subject of docks, of no country is it more true to say that every road and railway line begins or ends in the docks. As a people, we may consume four-fifths of our gross national product, but the whole operation of the consumption of that four-fifths is made possible by the one-fifth which moves across the quays of this country. To bring us up to date, I might say that which moves across the roll-on, roll-off quays, and, looking to the future, those goods may not move across quays at all, because we have recently seen an experiment in which containers were lifted off a sea-going vessel and taken right inland by helicopter. I understand that the United States Army is using this technique to supply troops in Vietnam.
The vast bulk of the one-fifth to which I have referred is essentially a private enterprise operation. The majority of ships serving our ports are private enterprise operated and owned.
I have no interest in the oil industry, but I defy any hon. Member to contradict me when I assert that little can match the superb efficiency with which the world's oil industry has supplied the energy needs of the country. Nothing is transported more efficiently or more cheaply, and in no field of activity have costs been kept more stable than that of transporting oil. That, by and large, is probably the world's most significant private enterprise operation. The House should not lose sight of it.


The outstanding feature of all these low-cost operations, of which oil is probably the most significant and to which I would add bulk grain, bulk sugar and many others, is the fully integrated control which the industries concerned exercise over the transport of their products. The majority of what might be termed the non-bulk industries and some of the bulk industries are in the same position today as the oil industry was 60 years ago, when most of its products were transported in 44-gallon drums. Today, a whole new series of products is crossing or about to cross the threshold of bulk operation.
To stress my impartiality on the question of public versus private, I refer to the public enterprise of methane. At the same time, I refer to the enterprises of molasses, acids, cement and wines, and to the fact that as many private enterprises are involved as public enterprises, if not more. They now justify special vessels, and soon they will justify special facilities.
Essential to this position is the common feature of unified control of the transport facilities which these operations will demand in terms of ships, dock installations and the delivery systems at each end. The outstanding example of this is the so-called container revolution. I am delighted that the Minister has learnt something about containers, and I confess to knowing a little about them. They provide an outstanding example, and I will refer to them again.
Nothing would be more likely to inhibit the enterprise or the transport technology required than an undue degree of public control at either end, in one country or the other. Certainly until helicopters become a common feature of our transport existence, the one segment in the transport chain which is essential is the docks.
What questions should we ask? I have suggested one with which we should not be concerning ourselves greatly, and that is whether they should be nationalised. May I suggest the questions about which we should be thinking? They fall into two main groups. What is the likely effect on the docks and shipping of this country of the following questions.
The first is the increasing specialisation of ship operations The second is the

increasing scale of ship operations. The third is the foreseeable changes in the technology of ship operations and not all are foreseeable. The fourth is the foreseeable but again not always foreseeable but desirable increase in economic integration about which we all talk so frequently in the House. The fifth, which has been almost completely neglected in the White Paper, is the effect of air freight which may account for 5 or 6 per cent. of the total traffic in and out of this country at the moment, but the growth rate of which is something like 11 or 12 per cent. per annum. That is something which can have significant results.
One question with which I should like to deal so as to get it out of the way is whether it is still possible for us in Great Britain acting alone, as it was possible for us to do in the 19th century, appreciably to affect the pace of this development. It seems to me that the answer is an unequivocal "No". Not only is our fleet a small fraction of the world fleet, but our economy is a small fraction of the world maritime trading economy, which was not so in the 19th century. We either keep up or fall behind in this as in many other spheres of activity.
The second group of questions which we should consider is, first, how much in percentage terms of our national investment should be put into docks and ships? I have not seen this sort of alternative carefully considered, and it is the type of decision which we should weigh and consider with all the available evidence. Do we as a nation adapt or rebuild existing docks, or do we resite them? I have not seen much reference to that in the White Paper, or anywhere else.
Thirdly, once we have decided what proportion of the national income we invest, and whether we adapt or rebuild, do we build to last? That again affects materially the whole character of our dock and port investment. Fourthly, do we decide as a nation to compete with Europe all along the line, or do we merely select which areas we are to compete in? If so, what are these areas to be?
I will deal now with the first series of questions in more detail. I referred to the increasing specialisation of ship operations. This will definitely continue. It is a function of both tonnages and of technology and is utterly inescapable.


Next there is the question of the increasing scale of ship operations. This tends to follow specialisation. The first tanker which supplied this country was a ship of some 6,000 tons. Towards the end of last year I.H.I. in Japan launched a tanker of 210,000 tons. This presents considerable problems of draught, as we all know. I want to refer to the problem of draught in the context of the type of decision which this nation should be considering. The United States Bureau of Engineers recently did some calculations on the cost of improving the access to the port of New Orleans, which happens to be a long channel—I think about 26 miles long. The cost of increasing the draught of this channel by 1 ft. was, in round terms, 300 million dollars. This is the type of question we should be considering in relation to such problems as I hope to come to later in connection with the Isle of Grain.
I turn to changes in the technology of ship operations. The most dramatic illustration of this is the container, but the Minister must not suggest that this can be developed only by laying on it the pallid and palsied hand of public control. I will not accept this. We must not forget the origins of this operation. We know and admire the experiment of British Railways. We know and admire the Irish Sea operations, which were brought to a stop by the outbreak of the Second World War. Nevertheless, the country where this development has got off the ground is the United States of America. The two main operators who have brought it to fruition are two important American private enterprise shipping companies—Sealand and Matson. This in the last few years has been where the dramatic growth in containerisation has taken place. Let us not forget it for a moment.
The question of economic integration is important, because we know now that there are no E.F.T.A. customs barriers. We hope—some of us more fervently than others—that there will be in due course no E.E.C. customs barriers. This brings me back to the question: what is the effect of this type of change in the flows of trade on the type of documentation which will or will not be required, and of this on the siting of our ports and the structure of our port systems?
I referred, finally, to the question of the effect of air freight. I was most interested to discover that the Sealand Corporation in New York, in assessing the impact of various forms of competition on its initial container operation through New York and Puerto Rico, came to the conclusion that by far the most serious threat was, not from other forms of shipping or containerisation at all, but from air freight between those two points. This is the type of thing we should be considering in relation to the traffic supplying this island, certainly within Western Europe and even across the Atlantic.
I turn now to my second series of questions. How much national investment should we be making? I notice that the White Paper refers to some sums. They are quite encouraging sums—£234 million over the years 1965–70. This is more than has been spent in the past. We should bear in mind that in the three areas which I mentioned earlier—Skandiahamn, Europoort and Rivalta Scriva—the total capital involved is about £150–£200 million. Therefore, though we can be much encouraged by projects such as Tilbury in the broad sense, though I have one reservation about it, the point must be made that there is no room for complacency in this field. But let us not start going across the Atlantic and looking at the vast sums which the United States are investing in their port facilities.
Do we adapt or rebuild? The answer must be a function of the most complex kind—a function of road-rail access costs and alternative use value. In almost every single instance, this type of problem has to be worked out in very great detail. We can only reach the conclusion that no docks development whatever should be considered in isolation. What struck me most forcibly during the prolonged visit which I recently paid to most of the major European ports was the tremendous emphasis which all the authorities concerned, be they public or private, are paying to the question of road access to their existing ports and to their new port developments. The first thing one is shown on being taken into the planning room is, not the docks, but the road system, because unless the capacity of the road system increases proportionately,


an increase in capacity of the port system is rather pointless.
Do we build to last? Here we should take into very careful consideration the significance of the pace of development of offshore supply systems of various kinds. This has developed to a considerable extent in oil, in such a fashion that mammoth tankers can lie well out to sea and discharge. We have seen this development in a comparable way in Canada with bulk coal. There is a rather interesting development of the "lash" system which has been developed by a New Orleans firm of naval architects and which has been taken up by a large number of American firms recently.
A conclusion we must draw is that transport flows, like water, into the lowest unit-cost channels. This is a point which we must look to all the time. Where are these low unit-cost channels? Are they here? Are they abroad? If they are abroad, what are their common characteristics and do we apply them here?
Do we compete with Europe? The answer is that, in the main trades—by these, I mean the main bulk flows on which our livelihood depends—if we cannot berth maximum-draught vessels in general use they will go elsewhere. Before we make up our minds on this problem we must assess the cost per ton of transhipment and relate it to the cost of deepening channels and to the cost of all the other highly specialised and highly expensive facilities which the deep draught vessels require.
This exercise should be conducted. The result needs to be made much more public than it has been. I hope that the National Ports Council or its successor, the National Ports Authority, will let us have a much more detailed view of its thinking on such questions so that, when we debate them in the House, we shall talk less about public and private enterprise and more about the real policy decisions and policy alternatives.
The United Kingdom requires at least one world standard terminal for bulk oil, one world standard terminal for bulk grain, and one world standard terminal for bulk ore. This I regard as the absolute minimum. If we do not have these three world standard terminals, we shall be supplied by trans-shipment and the

whole of our basic industrial cost structure will be affected. This is what national incomes means. This is what national production means. This is what national growth means. We must get away from vague, futile political concepts and get down to the real alternatives facing us.
The other factor which comes so much to the fore is the question of the dispersal of initiative and the capacity for response. This is an essential prerequisite, if in this sphere alone—the sphere of ports—we are to make the rapid progress which is required. Overall, integrated, State-controlled port systems do not seem to me to be in the forefront of any of these developments. I am thinking particularly of the French. I had a look at a number of French ports. Although they are doing some interesting things and spending a lot of money, on the whole they compare unfavourably with the other ports I saw in Europe. There is too much bureaucratic restraint, too many committees, too many political interferences. Had McLean, the founder and initiator of the sealand container operations, attempted to start sealand in the United Kingdom, he would never have got past the first-line defences of the Ministry of Transport.
It seems that we must come on to the question of what I call the National Plan domination of port thinking. This is illustrated particularly in the White Paper. This is a most dangerous philosophy, because it damns any foresight not its own. It damns any foresight with consequences embarrassing to the National Plan. Whitehall says, "If I think you should have this sort of dock, that is perfectly all right, but if you think you should have something which does not fit into the overall planning concept, it is not all right". The whole powerful and influential apparatus of State decision and State rejection will be brought to work, and it will work effectively against the project concerned.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Already, the port autthorities are being overloaded with some of the bureaucratic controls brought in by this Government. There is a great need for the Government to make haste slowly in any plans they have, is there not?

Mr. Lloyd: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. That is perfectly true, and I now come to a specific example to illustrate the point further, the Isle of Grain terminal decision. This was a project brought before the Government and the National Ports Council some months ago. I have been into it very carefully and into all the arguments, and I received a series of Answers about it from the Parliamentary Secretary. I shall refer to those Answers because they show in a convincing fashion how dangerous superficial and rapid thinking on a subject like this can be.
I put a series of Questions on draughts and tonnages of bulk carriers likely to use the Tilbury grain terminal. I asked about the tonnage of bulk carriers likely to be in operation and carrying bulk supplies to Europe and the United Kingdom in 1967, 1975 and in 1985. On the whole, the Answers were completely misleading, and I shall produce figures to show that that is so. The essential point here—I take the figures from Lloyd's Register—is that 10 years ago there were no bulk carriers in existence of over 25,000 tons. In the next five years, seven such vessels appeared. In the last four years, 114 vessels appeared on the Register of which no fewer than 22 are over 40,000 tons.
These vessels are all built specifically for bulk solids, but, as all those of us concerned with the industry know well, tankers have made continuing incursions into the grain trade. How many of these are there now of over 30,000 tons, the limiting factor for the Tilbury grain terminal?—495 vessels of over 30,000 tons, of which 405 are under four years old. A distinguished shipping economist, Mr. Cuffley, has estimated that by the end of 1967 650 bulk carriers of over 30,000 tons, of which 120 will be over 50,000 tons dead weight, and some will be of 100,000 tons dead weight, will be carrying grain and other bulk goods required by Western Europe.
This touches closely an even more fundamental aspect of our national life than one might imagine from reference simply to ships and tonnages. I refer to the cost of the nation's bread. To give an illustration of what this means, I quote from a series of authoritative estimates. Supplying grain with a 10,000- tonner over a 10,000 mile voyage gives a cost of about 32s. a ton. Taking the

tonnage up to 50,000, which is in immediate prospect, brings it down to 14s. a ton, less than half. Taking it to 100,000 tons the cost falls to 10·9s. per ton, and taking it to what one might regard as the ultimate limit in prospect at the moment, 300,000 tons, brings the cost down to 6·8s. a ton, that is, one-fifth of the first figure.
At the moment, in all our thinking about Tilbury, we are completely precluded from envisaging a fall in the cost of grain supply of this order, and I regard this as a most serious matter.
It could be said, perhaps, that these are world statistics and figures of world tonnage which do not necessarily apply for the United Kingdom. But what are the United Kingdom's own orders for tonnage to use our own ports? In the United Kingdom, there are on order now 26 bulk carriers of over 30,000 tons, of which 12 are over 50,000 and seven are over 70,000 tons. In the world as a whole, 55 vessels of over 70,000 tons are now on order. Yet we are at present completely excluded from contemplating supply to this country of the bulk goods which this type of vessel will carry.
I could refer to the dramatic efforts made by Holland to attract this trade to Europoort. The Dutch boast of the "westward" flow from Euraport. They say that it is growing. This is something which we must watch very carefully because, if we do not, we shall inevitably find ourselves on a far greater scale than we at present imagine an outport of Europe.
To sum up, docks make a vital contribution, or can make a vital contribution to the nation's balance of payments. There is no doubt that deep draught access is fundamental to our basic industrial cost structure. It is fundamental to the competitiveness of the United Kingdom's exports and, in a sense, to the acceptability of the United Kingdom in the E.E.C. The contribution of this factor alone, properly handled, can, in my view, be of the order of £100 million per annum on the balance of payments. The best way to subside exports is to get them there more cheaply by sheer economic efficiency. I hope that this debate will concentrate far more on these fundamental aspects of economic efficiency than on the vague concepts which have been floating about.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Walter Alldritt: I hope that what I have to say will be complementary to what has just been said by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd). I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman turned the course of this debate and drew attention to the way in which in it we have so far neglected our ports. They are of vital importance, and I am glad that the White Paper and the reports to which it refers define the cause, the effect and the cure of our ailments at the ports.
I was particularly pleased in reading the reports to see it made clear that it was not the labour force which had been the dark cloud over the industry but the lack of investment at the right time and in the right place. This has been shown by the hon. Member for Lang-stone, too.
Naturally, I was greatly interested in the references in the White Paper to the port of Liverpool, and I shall devote my speech mainly to that area. I am a little disturbed that the name Liverpool is still used. Although in the past this name has had great historical significance, our port complex is now the Mersey Docks. A number of local authorities are involved in the estates comprising our port. I hope, therefore, that any future report will use the name Mersey rather than Liverpool. I am a proud Liverpudlian, but I am prepared to say that because I want there to be co-operation in what we aim to achieve.
Merseyside is the greatest export complex in the country. It is now the most progressive as well. The justification for this can be seen if one looks at the recent major works of modernisation or the work in hand to modernise and increase berth capacity. They include our South Victoria Dock for exports, our South Alexander Dock for exports, our roll-on-roll-off berth, our cross-Channel container berth, our mechanised berth for meat, our fruit berth at East Harrington, our new berths at King's and our North Canada berth for the new timber packaging trade. These are just a few examples of what we have been doing on Merseyside.
Something else which we have done, to which sufficient attention has not been paid, has been to supply information. I believe that our service is unique. The

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has an open telex system, and it also has what is called the "Freefone" system. This is a system which enables anyone, importer or exporter, who wants to know what is going on at a particular quay to ring Freefone 667—I mention this deliberately, because of what I want to say in a minute—and know immediately whether it will be a waste of time sending his vehicles on that day, or whether his goods can be dealt with expeditiously and efficiently. It is my experience that, rather tragically, those who complain most about our dock services and dock labour are the very people who neglect the use of that kind of scheme. Yet they are the people who should be using it. Therefore, when we criticise we should remember that faults exist on all sides.
In spite of all that we are trying to do we cannot hope to deal with the new thinking aimed at putting dry goods into containers for through-shipment from origin to destination, nor can we compete with the Continent if we go on as we are. The remedy for Merseyside is obvious. We require deep-water berths and larger berths. We have too few of them at the moment.
When one remembers the comments about containerisation, which means that instead of handling 100,000 tons of goods a year a berth will be able to handle 1 million tons a year, it can be seen that a much larger area of land will be required behind each berth. Taking the three factors together, and the age of our port complex, we must provide new berths if we are to continue to serve the nation well—let us remember that Merseyside has done that—and serve the needs of those who use our port complex and are employed in it.
The Merseyside Docks and Harbour Board has submitted plans to my right hon. Friend for authority to build 10 new berths. They are deep-water berths and are much larger than the old berths which exist in Liverpool. I think that they will meet the criteria which I have already outlined and to which the hon. Gentleman pointed. The special aspect of the plans which are being submitted by the Board is that they will give flexibility, so that we shall be able to change the berth usage more quickly if there is a change in the traffic during the next 10 to 15 years.


The investment is large, but it seems to me common sense to build on a foundation which already exists. I do not believe that the answer is a completely new port. There is a solid foundation with communications already established, and therefore it seems that it would be in the nation's interest that Merseyside should have its 10 new berths. Merseyside is already the second largest port in Britain for dry goods and the largest for exports, and it is the chief port for deep-sea trade. No one can excel us in that.
I should like my right hon. Friend to say at once that we can proceed with the project, because it will do a number of things. It will be an investment that will make a valuable contribution to our economy and to solving the problem of unemployment on Merseyside. We shall not tolerate our present unemployment situation for much longer. If consent to the project is not forthcoming, it is inevitable that dock charges will rise, because traffic will fall. We shall not be able to service our loans, and that will make further unemployment on Merseyside. We are determined to do everything possible, as we have in the past, for our nation, but in so doing we shall also ensure the welfare of our people. I therefore hope that the Minister will be expeditious about the decision on the new port complex at Liverpool.
Many hon. Members are waiting to speak and therefore I wish to conclude with just a passing reference to inland waterways, and particularly to paragraphs 172 and 173 of the White Paper. I was delighted when I read them. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows of my interest and the reason for it. But I am a little disappointed, arising out of some previous references by him and by my right hon. Friend to the regional planning board, that as yet we have no decision on what will happen to that section of the Liverpool-Leeds Canal which runs through my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon). It has neither a commercial nor an amenity use, it is a plain, open cesspool. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to use their best offices to ensure an early decision on that matter.

The Second Clerk Assistant at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Sir ERIC FLETCHER, the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I have great sympathy for the Minister of Transport. I have always believed that the task of the Minister of Transport is one of the most difficult that any Minister can be called upon to carry out. In many ways the right hon. Lady occupies the hottest seat in the Government, and in all my remarks no criticism is directed at her personally. All of us on both sides of the House appreciate the courtesy with which she always receives us and tries to assist us, particularly in our constituency problems.
Out of office, the Labour Party proclaimed many good intentions about transport in all its various forms. It is said that whilst they roared like a lion out of office their actions since taking office have been a good deal less than we were led to expect. During the last Parliament we were promised again and again that we should receive the White Paper on the co-ordination of British transport. In answer to a Question which I put to the right hon. Lady's predecessor, in November, 1965, I was promised that the White Paper would be produced before the Christmas Recess that year. We had to wait for it until last July, and then we had to wait another seven months for the debate.
The Labour Party roared like a lion out of office, and I am sad that today we are debating a White Paper which is little better than the whimper of a rather timid mouse. Nevertheless, there are things in it which must be welcomed. I also welcome the right hon. Lady's announcement that the Government intend to ensure the preservation of the main railway line through Cornwall to Penzance. By that statement she will put at rest the minds of many people who have been anxious about the future of that stretch of line since the publication of the second phase of the Beeching Report, in which the line was shown as a branch and was clearly indicated as one of the lines which


would eventually be axed. When the right hon. Lady says that the line will be preserved, may we also assume that the passenger service on it will be preserved? This is an important distinction, and we should be glad of clarification on it.
My colleagues and I particularly welcome the point made on British Railways' new policy at paragraph 14 that:
Commercial viability is important but secondary.
That important distinction will be welcomed by all of us who represent rural constituencies, where rail transport is so vital.
It also said, in paragraph 18, that
There are other services, however,"—
referring to railways—
which have little or no prospect of becoming directly remunerative, in a commercial sense, on the basis of revenue from users, at least until a more sensible framework for urban transport can be established; yet their value to the community outweighs their accounting cost to the railways. These socially necessary services include many commuter services in conurbations, whose closure would add to road congestion costs, and some services in remote areas where reasonable alternatives are impracticable or excessively costly.
I am grateful to the right hon Lady for making that important distinction.
Yet the Minister still gives her assent to closure orders. For example, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), we have recently had the closure of the Padstow-Bodmin line, although over 130 schoolchildren used it daily during term time. In West Wales, closures are taking place which grievously affect people living in the area. These closures continue even before the right hon. Lady has had an opportunity to put her Bill for the coordination of transport before the House.
Worse still, there is a suggestion in the White Paper that if some of the rural train services are to remain in operation, the local authorities will be required to shoulder some part of the cost. This is not a reasonable proposition. There must be a cerain amount of subsidy and it should come from the central Exchequer and not from local ratepayers in areas where incomes are, in any case, inevitably much lower than in the prosperous urban districts.
The right hon. Lady should give serious consideration to the proposal being made in many quarters that she should cry

"Halt" to all rail closures pending legislation to replace the 1962 Act. The figures given to the House indicate that the saving by closures is nothing like as great as was expected by the last Government when the Beeching Plan was introduced. There have been about 300 closures since 1963 and the Railways Board claim savings of about £17 million. But these figures do not stand up to examination.
In 1962 there were no closures; in 1963 there were 21; and in 1964 we had the lowest deficit since 1960. But 1964 and 1965, when there was a total of 170 closures, resulted in the worst working deficit, for it increased by over £2 million in 1965. A further increase of £1 million is expected on last year. I beg the right hon. Lady not to be brainwashed by these cooked-up figures and accounts produced by British Railways.
In the White Paper, there is an extraordinary absence of detailed proposals about roads. I recognise that the right hon. Lady is to produce further proposals and these will be examined carefully and objectively, at any rate by those of us on this bench. The proposals in the White Paper are inadequate. There is a very strong economic argument for increased Treasury spending but I realise that, in the present economic difficulties, it is hard to provide additional money for any form of Government spending. Nevertheless, in the long term, this is an investment on which the country depends for future prosperity, and any failure by the Government to provide money now for additional road construction will gravely affect the future long-term economy of the country.
The right hon. Lady indicated that money was not the whole answer, and I do not suggest that it is. But it there is a labour problem, then surely this should be resolved if the Government's prices and incomes policy means anything, for we have been promised a "shake-out" in industry to provide people for essential jobs—and there can be no more essential job than building new roads.
The right hon. Lady expected that someone would say something about road loans, but no one has done so so far. I shall remedy this because it is part of established Liberal policy. We believe that this proposal is simple and that the right means of raising money for


additional motorways beyond those already planned by the Ministry is to flt a Government loan, guaranteed by the Government, to build roads with the money obtained and to charge a toll for their use. When the capital sum was finally repaid, the toll would be removed entirely and the Ministry would take over the responsibility of maintenance.
There would be no obligation upon the road user to use the toll road if he did not wish to. He could use the slower, alternative road. But in fact—and this has been proved conclusively, although I shall not weary the House with figures —it is cheaper and more economical in terms of time, fuel consumption and vehicle wear to pay a toll than to use antiquated outmoded roads such as those we have today. Wherever toll roads have been built in other countries and this system adopted it has been proved not only workable but highly acceptable to the road user once he has become accustomed to the idea.
I should like to have said a word or two about rural bus services but this has already been touched upon by other hon. Members and I am anxious to keep my speech short because, at the outset, Mr. Speaker asked that we should speak briefly. Unfortunately, very few hon. Members have obeyed as we would have liked them to do, and I want to give time to other hon. Members who wish to speak. However, the point has been made that serious hardship has been caused to many bus operators by the removal of the investment grant, and I hope that the Government will look at this again even though nothing is said about it in the White Paper.
I have never believed that a coordinated transport service is "on", that it is a practical proposition. I do not believe that a co-ordinated transport service is outlined in the White Paper or that we shall have such a service when the Bill is published.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) made a speech which was a remarkable performance, for I noted that he did not use a single note and he quoted many figures, all of which I am sure were accurate. He referred to the "preparation pool". It seems that the Government have decided that, as we

cannot have roads, we shall have preparations instead. But we have had preparations for many years and now people would like some roads for a change.
The White Paper is a disappointment. At last, after two and a half years, the trumpets have sounded and the walls remain unshaken. The right hon. Lady asked the Opposition parties whether we intended to vote against her proposals in respect of rail closures and a new deal for British Railways. We in the Liberal Party will not vote against the retention of urban and rural rail services which are essential and which many hon. Members on the Conservative benches have had second thoughts about since the 1962 Act.
But it is impossible for the Liberal Party to vote for the Motion
That this House approves the proposals contained in the statement on Transport Policy …
because those proposals are totally inadequate and a bitter disappointment to people who expected that a radical Government would produce a radical programme for roads, rail and all forms of transport. I am afraid that I can only ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in voting against this White Paper.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: By a slip of the tongue the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) referred to the Minister as the "white lady". I am glad to say that so far as this debate is concerned, she remains a "red" lady. She made what I thought. was an admirable Socialist speech, defending the White Paper with which I heartily agree.
If I speak only about railways, and mainly about railway workshops it is not because the voters of Swindon are not interested in roads and many other matters, particularly the M4, but it is in the interests of other hon. Members, who may wish to speak. If I strike what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary may think is a gloomy note, it is because there is considerable gloom among those of my constituents working on the railways.
I would start by asking my hon. Friend to remind my right hon. Friend of her promise before the 1965 election, which


he confirmed the other day, that she intended to visit the railway workshop in Swindon. We feel that this visit is overdue. When she comes she will find that, despite the cuts and closures and dismantling, some of it totally indefensible, like the wicked dismantling of our very fine points and crossing shop not long ago. Swindon railway workshops, like workshops in other parts of the country, still has great resources of skill and experience which are a precious national asset.
Unfortunately she will also find a great deal of impatience, anxiety and frustration among railway shopmen for the following three reasons. The first is because of the long delay in implementing a clear and categorical election pledge made in 1964, and repeated in 1965, that a Labour Government would legislate to free the railway workshops to take on any outside work in fair competition with private firms. There is impatience among railway shopmen and among my hon. Friends representing railway constituencies because of the unjustifiable delay in implementing this pledge. I am sorry to say that the Government's excuses and justifications for the delay—that there is not much extra work to be had anyway, that legislation would have no practical effect—merely increases the suspicions of the shopmen that the Government and the Board are not sincere now, as they have not been sincere in the past, and that they do not want the workshops to compete fairly with private firms.
If my right hon. Friend thinks that this matter has been happily settled with the railway unions, will she please see to it that the happy settlement is explained to the shopmen, because they are far from happy? Delegates from all the main railway workshops came only a few days ago to the House to protest most strongly to our Parliamentary Transport Group and they were very disappointed that the Minister was not able to see them.
The second reason for the shopmen's anxiety, which I believe is shared by many other railwaymen, is the uncertainty about their future wages structure. Here again, if the railway unions and the Confederation are happy with their talks with the Minister of Labour, will they or the Minister make sure that the shop-

men, who at the moment are being exposed to all kinds of alarmist predictions that their wages are to be slashed, are fully and speedily informed of the true position? The present uncertainty is imposing a very severe strain upon them.
The third reason for the anxiety and frustration among the shopmen is because, although Lord Beeching has left for two other places, I.C.I. and the institution on the other side of the Central Lobby, and although the "Marples Must Go" campaign was successful in 1964 —I am sorry to see that the right hon. Gentleman has gone—the shopmen do not detect any fundamental change of attitude toward them either in their own management or among senior officials at the Ministry of Transport.
Although some new ad hoc decisions have been taken, and there have been a number of very encouraging speeches from the Minister, and we have had one of these this afternoon, the basic approach from those in charge of the railways and the railway workshops seems, at least to the shopmen, to be exactly what it was previously. If I were to continue to criticise the management of British Railways my hon. Friend might comment that it is not right for a Member of the House to attack public servants. I will not pursue those criticisms except to point out what I believe to be a very real and serious difficulty.
Public servants in Government Departments, and in the Post Office at present, are directly responsible to Ministers who can answer for them and can be criticised and questioned in this House about their work. But other public servants, working for nationalised industries, are shielded and isolated from Parliamentary scrutiny because Ministers refuse to accept responsibility for so-called matters of day-to-day management and will not answer Parliamentary Questions about them. In practice it is impossible to draw a satisfactory frontier between questions of policy and of day-to-day management.
The effect of the present rule is to make the public nationalised industries less accessible to Parliament and less subject to Parliamentary criticism than many private firms. My own experience in my constituency has often been information I can get better and more rapid Information
from, and can more easily discuss public


and local matters with, private managements such as those at the Plessey Factory or Pressed Steel, than is the case with the Ministry of Transport and the Railways Board.

Mr. McNamara: Would my hon. Friend agree that the situation is that if we refer a matter to the Minister we are told that it is a matter of day-to-day policy, and that the Minister cannot interfere, but if we refer a matter to the Railways Board we are told that it is Ministerial policy and therefore it cannot account for it?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I believe that on both sides of the House there is deep concern about the impossibility of getting satisfactory answers in the House about the operations of nationalised industries, or for that matter from the Board. I should like to cite the experience of my right hon. Friend and parent, the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker). During the war, my right hon. Friend answered Parliamentary Questions about all aspects of the railways, day-to-day management and all the details, and all other transport Questions. After the war, when he was Minister of Fuel and Power, he tells me that he accepted every Question that came to him about so-called day-to-day management for all of the nationalised industries for which he was responsible. My right hon. Friend says that far from impeding their work, these Parliamentary Questions stimulated and helped the publicly-owned industries concerned.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to remove this unnecessary restriction on the rights of Parliament and hon. Members over the railways and over other parts of the public sector of industry which she controls. I should have liked to have pursued the burning topic of the removal of the planned coal concentration centre from Swindon to Bristol, and the very grave problems which this will cause for the road system in the vicinity of my constituency. I hope that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), who may follow me, will take this matter up. It concerns him, too.
I believe that the Minister of Transport has a crucial rôle to play in determining

the environment in which future generations will live. I was in the United States during her visit there, and it seemed to me that parts of California, round Los Angeles, were the nearest to hell on earth to which I ever hope to get. The private motor car dominates every aspect of human life; human beings have become the slaves of it. Public transport has vanished. Walking is physically impossible and very nearly a criminal offence in many of the United States conurbations. I was told by a leading diplomat that when he walked with his wife in the evening in one of the main American cities he was stopped by the police and asked what had happened to his car and why was he walking?
For goodness sake let us not follow the American way of life in transport. It is very nearly too late and only drastic restrictions on the use of all private cars in towns, and perhaps outside them, can save this small island from paralysis and suffocation. The railways have a vital rôle to play in future, a greatly expanded rôle and I hope that it will be the deliberate policy of the Government to attract, and if necessary to drive large numbers of long distance travellers, and the bulk of our long distance freight from the roads and on to the railway system. Transport is one area in which private enterprise, the profit motive and free competition have totally failed to meet modern needs. Only a bold long-term Socialist planning solution can succeed.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I am very pleased to follow in debate a fellow Wiltshire Member and representative of a neighbouring constituency, the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker). I hope that he will forgive me if I do not take up his argument on railways. I agreed with a certain amount of what he said. Nor will I be tempted to take up his remarks on coal depôts. I want particularly to talk about roads in this debate. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the construction of the M4, which is being very much delayed. I hope that we can join forces in bringing some pressure to bear on the Minister to accelerate the construction of this road, which we need so desperately in Wiltshire.
We on this side of the House have been looking forward to this debate for a long


time. I must tell the Minister quite frankly—I am sorry that she is not here —that we are bitterly disappointed with her speech. There were many points in the White Paper which needed clarification. A great deal of it was drawn in very general terms. We hoped that she would fill in some of the gaps. But she has told us practically nothing new.
The Minister always has been, and always will be, a very political lady. Today she made a highly partisan and very political speech. I know that that pleased the hon. Member for Swindon, but it was a pity. During the first five minutes of her speech we might have been at an election meeting. Good transport policy and party politics do not mix, and if one tries to mix them transport policy will suffer.
I am one of those Members who believe in 10-minute speeches. I shall not exceed that time, although it is difficult not to do so in a wide debate of this kind. I shall resist the temptation on this occasion to tell the Minister about the awful traffic problems which we have in my constituency. I wish to talk about two main issues: first, freight traffic, and, secondly, urban public transport.
The basic facts about freight were set out at page 129 of the National Plan. It is unfashionable these days to refer to the National Plan, but I should like to quote paragraph 14 of it:
The bulk of goods traffic within the country must continue to move by road, since a large proportion of the total traffic is over short distances. Of the total tonnage moving by road, approximately 70 per cent. moves over distances under 25 miles and some 85 per cent. under 50 miles. At distances over 100 miles road transport accounts for about two-fifths of total freight ton-mileage; rail and coastal shipping share the other three-fifths equally".
That is a perfectly fair statement, and it emphasises that only a limited amount of traffic can be attracted back to the railways.
Paragraph 90 of the White Paper reads:
One of the causes of this imbalance between road and rail has been the determination of successive Conservative Governments to destroy the machinery for integrating road and rail transport.
That is playing party politics with a vengeance. It contradicts the argument clearly set out in the National Plan. I

make this point only because if one starts with prejudice when approaching these problems one tends to get the wrong answers. Further on, paragraph 90 reads:
Under the Transport Act, 1962, the Railways Board and the Holding Company operate not only independently but in competition with each other.
Quite right, too. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) seemed to deride competition, but I take exactly the opposite view, and that is why I am a Conservative. I cannot see anything wrong in competition.
I believe that a sensible policy for freight involves three simple ingredients. First, it should preserve freedom of choice to users. Secondly, it should produce fair and genuine competition between different forms of transport. Thirdly, it should encourage voluntary co-operation between road and rail. These are the principles on which a freight policy should operate. The creation of the national freight authority will achieve none of these things. In particular, I am sure that it will prevent fair competition between the authority and private hauliers.
I know from my personal knowledge that the haulage industry, which is highly competitive and efficient, is deeply worried about this aspect. I am sure that the Minister's speech today will in no way allay its fears. If those in the haulage industry had heard the tone of some of her speech, they might have been even more worried. I listened very carefully for details about the national freight authority. The right hon. Lady told us very little, but she referred to yet another authority called the freight integration council. This seems to me typical Socialist planning, creating even more authorities and even more jobs for the boys. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East, in his excellent speech, revealed that the railways, too, have serious doubts about the national freight authority.
I turn to the question of public transport in towns. The Minister puts her faith in conurbation transport authorities —a most ghastly name to call any authority. The White Paper gives very little detail about their functions. The Minister's speech gave practically no guidance


as to how these authorities would function. She was kind enough to give way to me towards the end of her speech and I asked whether they would operate buses. I understood her to say that they would. She referred me to a Memorandum available in the Vote Office, paragraph 12 of which states:
What seems to be needed is an authority which combines the independence of management characteristic of a professional board with the broad democratic oversight characteristic of a local authority and, at the same time, provides for an appropriate division of financial responsibilities between central and local government. Such an authority would have to be constituted so as to separate formally the functions of management and of democratic oversight.
What on earth does that mean? We shall study it and try to make sense of it in the coming months.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us how the authorities will work. They seem to me to be entirely unworkable and I am certain that they will do nothing to make buses more efficient. Bus operators want to know the Minister's intentions. They have very justifiable fears that her intention is to nationalise them. Is the right hon. Lady saying that the management of bus companies is inefficient? The Parliamentary Secretary might comment on that. Does she think that a board of worthy people who do not understand the technical business of running buses will do better? Does she think that these large authorities will produce better services and lower fares?
What is needed is not nationalisation, but better co-operation between local authority highway and planning departments so that measures can be taken urgently to enable buses to move properly. That is the way in which the Minister should be tackling the problem, not by back door or front door nationalisation.
As I have said, we have waited a long time—too long—for the White Paper. We have waited too long for this debate. The Minister's speech really was a bitter disappointment.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: It has been very interesting to watch the tactics of members of the Opposition Front Bench in this debate. They have attempted to turn what could and should have been a very constructive debate into a political exercise.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) made a lively speech. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to it. It should set him on the road—or should I say "rail"—to being the next but one leader of the Conservative Party. However, when one analyses it, there is not a constructive idea or statement in it. It was a purely destructive speech. If we want to find out what Conservative thinking is, we should look at the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). He clearly revealed Conservative thinking on transport problems. He showed that Conservative Party thinking has not changed since hon. Members opposite were in Government. His speech showed their semi-pathological dislike of public enterprise. The whole speech was an attack on the public sector of transport. This is a continuation of the tactics which the Opposition adopted when they were in Government.
A couple of references have been made to the closing of the Southampton to Le Havre ferry. When the history of that is written, I suspect that it will be shown that British Railways were under considerable political pressure from the Government of the day to close that service because they disliked public enterprise. The whole policy was to crimp, restrict and to do everything possible to hamper and even to sabotage the public sector of transport. We saw this in the refusal to allow the railway workshops to compete in the outside market.

Mr. McNamara: Is not my hon. Friend being unkind to British Railways? Would he not put it down to gross mismanagement on their part in that they failed to consider shipping interests as opposed to their railway interests and did not properly examine traffic flows? We have had the same situation arising in the Fishguard to Waterford line and the failure to take the opportunities available to publicly-owned shipping generally.

Mr. Mitchell: There may be an element of truth in what my hon. Friend said. I am still convinced, as are many of my colleagues, that political pressure was brought on British Railways to close this and some other services.
I do not accept the description of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell)


that the White Paper is a "timid mouse". I believe the White Paper has some very constructive ideas and that it is the first real attempt to bring forward a coordinated transport policy.
Having said that, I now want to make a few criticisms of the White Paper. They are criticisms of omissions. There is insufficient in the White Paper about coastal and even deep sea shipping. There is also insufficient emphasis on both inland freight and passenger air traffic. We cannot have a really co-ordinated transport system without taking seriously into consideration, at the same time as rail and road, air traffic and coastal shipping. This is vitally important for certain parts of the country especially the West Country, which should have a proper air service.
I realise that there is a different Departmental responsibility here, and that civil aviation and shipping come under different Ministerial responsibility. Nevertheless, if we really mean to have a co-ordinated transport policy, this must be included in it.

Mr. Galbraith: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that that air services should be subsidised?

Mr. Mitchell: I have not given way to the hon. Gentleman. I want to give a chance to somebody else to get into the debate. There is also a need—it is not mentioned in the White Paper even briefly—for a national policy for the siting of airports. This is very important.
I go on to my main theme, which is that section of the White Paper dealing with ports. In the past the ports of this country have been subjected to considerable criticism. The ports have been seriously neglected by previous Governments. It was not until 1961, when the Rochdale Committee was set up, that any real attempt was made to introduce a co-ordinated national ports policy. That Committee reported in 1962.
There has been no genuine attempt to improve industrial relations in our ports. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Lang-stone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) in which he analysed many of the problems of our ports, but he did not refer to the question of industrial and labour relations

inside those ports. Until the Labour Party came to power there had been no real attempt to provide decent working conditions for those working in the dock industries, as provided by the Docks and Harbours Act, although much more remains to be done—let us not close our eyes to that.
The White Paper recognises the need for greater capital investment in our ports. There is need for new machinery to bring up to date our handling techniques for cargo. In many respects we are a long way behind our European competitors in the use of modern equipment. The introduction of modern equipment means that there will be new skills from those working inside the industry, and we need better and more training schemes than we have at the moment.
The third major essential is the replacement of the present system of casual employment, which has bedevilled the docks for so many years, by a proper and regular employment system with a proper career structure inside it. All this points to the overwhelming need for public ownership of our ports.
As my colleagues on this side of the House know, I am not generally regarded as being a nationaliser. I have never believed that nationalisation and public ownership was the answer to all our problems. The question whether a thing should be in public ownership or private ownership should be considered on the merits of the case. I will make a horrible confession. I had some doubts about a recent Measure that was passed through the Chamber, but I have no doubt whatever that the only real solution for the future of our ports is a system of public ownership.
I turn now to that section in the White Paper, paragraphs 118 and 119, dealing with reorganisation. It has not been mentioned so far this evening. Although it is important to take something under public ownership, it does not stop there. It is what we do afterwards that is of vital importance.
I should like to see set up a national ports authority, a fairly small body comprising five or six men—not as many. as recommended by the Rochdale Committee, as I do not want to see representatives of all the various interests in the industry, for I believe that one of


the problems with our ports has been the over-emphasis on user interests. This body should consist of about four or five men, chosen not necessarily for their experience inside the industry, because we could well use people from outside. I should like to see half a dozen people on this body who would be well paid. We would have to pay them well. It is no good hon. Members on my side of the House complaining when we have to pay a reasonable salary in order to get the right people and in order to compete with private industry. We have to do this.
What do we mean by a regional port authority? What do we mean by a "region"? It is quite clear what we mean by "region" if we are talking about gas or electricity supplies. It means a continuous geographical area. But there is no such thing as a continuous geographical area when we are dealing with ports.
To talk of a regional port authority is meaningless. One or two suggestions have been put forward already. One is that there should be half a dozen groupings, such as the Humber, the Thames, the Severn, Merseyside, Scotland, and perhaps one other. The second suggestion is that there should be 12 or 14 smaller estuarial authorities.
I do not want either of these. I should like to put forward seriously at this stage —because if I do not do so now it might be too late—a third suggestion. There should be three groupings under the overall direction of the National Ports Authority. The first should be concerned with London and perhaps the Medway and based on the experience of the present London Port Authority. The second would contain Merseyside—Liverpool and Manchester. The rest of the ports would be in one group. Obviously the body which has had great experience of running a variety of ports of different size is the British Transport Docks Board. It is not sufficiently realised what great work has been done since the Board has been in operation. Many of the most efficient ports in this country are those owned by the Docks Board.
If there were such a division into three groups, they would be big enough to offer a managerial career structure and to

undertake investment and research which would be co-ordinated from above. We are here discussing an industry with a capital of just over £100 million and employing about 130,000 men, so in that respect it is not a very large industry. These groups would be far preferable to any attempt to divide the country into regions, which would be meaningless in the context of ports.
I have been asked to be short. I have taken nine minutes so far. My voice is just about going and at this stage I shall sit down and allow someone else a chance to speak.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: It was very kind of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) to make a brief speech and I hope that the small contribution which I intend to make will make him feel that his generosity was worth while.
I want to make some comments about the railways, and two of them coincide with the points which were so ably made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). My first question is where, on the basis of the White Paper, do the Government feel that we are going with the totality of railway financing. The railways have substantial losses of about £130 million. Judging from what we have heard from the Government and from some hon. Members opposite, the only answer which the Government have to this totality of financing is to consider changing the methods of accounting. I accept that some of the losses which the railways have to bear are quite unavoidable and that if only commercial considerations were taken into account, the losses would be much smaller. But losses in public expenditure must be matters of priority and if substantial sums are being spent on the railways, they have to be socially and politically justified.
On the subject of accountancy; one of the most alarming parts of the White Paper, mentioned by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, is paragraph 27 which says that consideration should be given to local communities accepting responsibility for passenger services. The White Paper goes into this in much greater detail later. Previous speakers have rightly said that this could impose


a considerable burden on some rural and remote areas. I am not very knowledgeable about rural and outlying areas, but I know what a burden this could be for some cities.
I was amazed when only a few weeks ago I found that the excellent services in Glasgow, the fully modernised Blue Train electric services, were operating at a loss of about £500,000 a year. That seems to be a substantial sum, but if those services had not been modernised and electrified, the loss would probably have been in excess of £1 million. To suggest that a local authority such as Glasgow, which has about the highest rate burden in the country and from which business and industry are being driven by the rate burden, could bear this extra burden is unreasonable and unrealistic. If there is a loss, there is no question but that someone has to pay it. It is always easy to say that the Government should accept responsibility. We do not think of the Government in the same way that we think of local authorities when we discuss direct contributions. But this idea is a non-starter, because the burden would be impossible, certainly for areas where wages are low and profits are low and populations are not very great, but also in the cities where there is already a major financial problem.
I would like the Government to give more details about precisely what they mean by paragraph 27. What specific proposals do they have in mind, or on what general principles do they believe that this paragraph can be operated? This is not a matter which concerns only Glasgow, or Ayrshire, or even Scotland. Local authorities throughout the country will be concerned. I appreciate that the Government may not be able to give details at the moment, but perhaps they can give some idea of what principles they believe should be taken into account and what proportions of cost they think that local authorities and others should bear.
I want secondly to refer to the totality of the deficit. Those of us with a small interest in railways were very interested to read what the Government said in the National Plan. On page 129 of the National Plan it is said:
The elimination of the working deficit and the increased productivity, and the associated

lower costs and lower manpower requirements, would be a significant contribution to the nation's economic growth objectives.
That, of course, is a fact. If we could save £130 million by means of increased productivity and lower costs and lower manpower requirements, we would have a lot more money to spend in other directions.
But the implication of that passage was that the Government were working towards those objectives and had in mind eliminating the deficit by 1970. The more direct reference to this in the National Plan said
British Railways' working deficit on railway operations before payment of interest was £67 million in 1964.… They estimate that they should be able to eliminate the working deficit by 1970 …"—
subject to certain provisions.
We should know precisely what the Government have in mind to deal with this deficit. When questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) on 25th January, the Minister's answer was not nearly so direct as that passage in the National Plan. The right hon. Lady said:
They may be referred to in the National Plan but … my Ministry and the Railways Board £ set up joint machinery to study the financial implications of new policies for the railways."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 1482.]
We do not know precisely how the Government believe that the finances of the railways should go, and we are entitled to that information.
Throughout the debate, most hon. Members have accepted that the railways are in a rather special position. Everyone has a soft spot for them. But the real breakthrough for the railways came with Lord Beeching and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). For the first time, it became generally accepted that it could be argued that the railways would not just wither away, but that they had a lively future as a speedy and efficient modern industry. In the past, it was only a matter of asking what support we had to give and what subsidies were required and what lines have to be kept open for social reasons, but not many people felt that the railways had a future as an efficient, modern and profitable industry.
Beeching changed all that. Certainly some of his proposals were extremely


unpopular and some of the social implications of the measures which he began were great, but he gave hope and optimism. The Minister of Transport should be judged only by the extent to which her policies can bring about this transition to a speedy, efficient, competitive and modern railway system. This should be the aim of both parties in the House and of everyone in the country, and it is certainly not encouraging to those who believe in the railways.

Mr. Bessell: I am sure the hon. Member will agree that there are three parties in this House.

Mr. Taylor: Not only am I aware of the Liberals, but I appreciate the contribution made by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). It is also only fair to point out that there is a Welsh Nationalist hon. Member. I am sure that he is equally interested in the railways and their development.
It did not please those interested in the future of the railways to hear that their capital programme is being cut severely and to find the lack of progress in obtaining open access to liner train terminals. This has become a lively issue. We on this side of the House mention it so often because we know that the question of open access is vital if we are to ensure that capital spent on the railways is fully utilised. We owe a real duty to the taxpayer and those who use these services to make sure that the money is used effectively. If we do not ensure that we get full benefit from the railways we shall not be doing a proper job for the country and repaying our debt to the taxpayer.
Another matter I raise concerns the extent to which capital is employed on the railways. One of the main problems has been that while the amount of freight declined considerably from 1900, when it was 420 million miles, to 1965, when it was about 225 million miles, the number of passenger miles also declined by about one-third. The decline in passenger miles has been from 1,025 million miles to 825 million miles. The amount of actual lines has declined only marginally. This involves considerable cost and adds to overheads.
In these circumstances it is absolutely essential that we should make the fullest possible use of the railways which remain.

It is interesting to note that the accounts of British Railways show that about £130 million a year has to be spent on maintaining the lines. It is completely essential that the electrification programme of British Railways should be encouraged and speeded very considerably. The great advantages of this are obvious, and will be made more obvious when the South Clydeside line is operating. It means that better and more frequent services can be run and we can have the advantage of using such lines as are available more speedily and economically. There might be a marginal difference in cost between electric and diesel services. Diesels can be justified in certain circumstances, but we should remember that on most railway journeys up to about 250 miles electric trains can compete in the quality of service, speed and efficiency with the air and any alternative form of transport.
Looking to the future in relation to the country's balance of payments and the enormous contribution to the balance 01 payments which can be made by British contract abroad, it is interesting to note that in the last few years 1,700 miles of electric track have been laid down by British engineers in India alone. For these reasons electrification is completely vital.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I have been following with great attention and agreement what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has said. Was he going on to say that, while the capital cost of electrification is a great deal less than it is often represented to be, the working costs, as has been proved in France, Italy, Japan and Russia, of electrifying trains are less than two-thirds of the costs of diesels and our diesels today involve the purchase of imported oil amounting to £64 million a year?

Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, but when we are considering the two systems we have to take capital costs into account. The point I make, fully in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, is that it is not only a question of comparison of costs, but also a question of the great contribution to the balance of payments which British engineers abroad make by laying down these tracks abroad. We are also less vulnerable if we rely on electricity rather than on oil.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. David Webster: May I, as a Scot but representing an English constituency, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on proving beyond doubt that a Scotsman can speak with brevity? I agree with many points which he has made. This has been a debate in which we have had to speak with brevity because there has been a half-hour reduction in the time for it. It is unfortunate that this has happened.
I notice that the first four speakers from the benches opposite were hon. Members who not only spoke about regional problems but spoke from personal experience, because they are union officials or union members of various unions connected with the railway industry. The anxiety which we on this side of the House have is that this great opportunity which has been created by the introduction of freightliner trains, an opportunity which perhaps for the first time since the 1923–24 regrouping gives the railways a chance to break through—an overworn word—and begin to tear into its deficit and abolish it, is to be taken away from the railways and given to an anonymous, amorphous body known as the National Freight Organisation. This is a matter of great anxiety to me, because I share the anxieties of the four hon. Members to whom I have referred. They want the deficit reduced, and the morale of railwaymen improved. I see this imaginative concept being taken out of their hands and being put into the hands of this anonymous body.
The first paragraph of the White Paper is to an extent symbolic of the Minister's whole attitude to the motor car. In the first quarter of this paragraph she says that the motor car is a good thing. The remaining 75 per cent. of the paragraph outlines all its disadvantages. We all remember that when the motor car was invented it had to be preceded by a man carrying a red flag. To me the Minister is a woman carrying a red flag in this respect—the right hon. Lady can take that either way—and it appears that she has not adapted herself or her Department to the motor age. We regret this.
I believe that the function of Government is not simply to find methods of controlling every aspect of the citizen's

life. It is to create the conditions under which men and women can fulfil themselves thoroughly. The motor car is one of the greatest inventions of our time, and it is the job of government to adapt things in the country so that the motor car can be our servant and not that we should be its slave.
The right hon. Lady and I often go to the same public function. She is very charming, and makes extremely good speeches. People go away charmed and say that she is not as bad as they thought she was going to be. I have no complaint about the right hon. Lady's speeches. People who hear the right hon. Lady speak go away convinced that she intends private enterprise to continue, and that she means the motor car well. I thought that the best example of her real mentality occurred when, in the autumn, she got stuck in a traffic jam in her big Ministerial car. She went on to address a girls' school and said that the motor car was an abomination and had to be controlled, and that motorists had to be taught a lesson once and for all. I have not heard the Minister deny that she said that.
It appears to me that this mentality fitted in with the preconceived notions which the Minister had when she went to her present Department, and this, I think, is one of the sorrows overhanging the Ministry of Transport. Instead of accelerating the road programme, instead of realising that road transport is one of the arteries of British life, both economically and socially, and must be looked after if we are to be prosperous, the right hon. Lady takes every opportunity to harangue the motorist and to harass him. I deplore, as do hon. Gentlemen opposite, the fact that the Minister takes this attitude.

Mr. Manuel: Get on with it.

Mr. Webster: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is still shunting his little train.
When the Minister went at great expense to New York, we thought that she was going to learn something, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) did some years ago. She talked to Mr. Hank Barnes, the very successful traffic commissioner, first of Baltimore and then of New York. But this Minister did not go to learn.


She went to harangue him. We regret this public expense; this is probably one of the most costly lessons which the Americans have had at our expense.
This denotes the Minister's attitude to the motor car and the motorist and those people who try to design our cities and inter-urban traffic to deal with the motorist——

Mrs. Castle: Mrs. Castleindicated dissent.

Mr. Webster: The Minister does not seem to like this particularly, but she must be reminded of the attitude which she is showing to the country and which the country notes. She should be reminded that it is her function to do something to create better conditions for the motorist and for the user of public transport and not simply to create, on every possible occasion, a new authority.
For every problem, there is to be a new authority— the conurbation authority, the National Freight Organisation, the port rationalisation scheme—and the road hauliers are to be gradually nationalised and eroded away. This is not planning transport but planning Socialism. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire may laugh, but he and I know of the great tribute to the Minister of Transport paid by her hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) who understands these things and appreciated the fact that he had at least one active Socialist Member in the Cabinet. We know this. This is the practice of Socialism through the whole economy —not to better the citizen's life but to get control of every aspect of our affairs.
It is usual, at this stage of a debate, for the Government, bereft of any ideas themselves, to say to us, "What would you do?" and occasionally they take our advice. We advised them last May to take the steam out of the economy. Belatedly, they took our advice, and on 20th July the Prime Minister said that there was a financial crisis and that he would have to take steps. The Minister is aware that as a result she had to postpone her own White Paper on transport policy for a week.
If we are asked for advice on this occasion, the advice which we would give is that there are certain characteristics of each type of transport and that they can be dovetailed together and must be

used to the greatest advantage. Although four railway union officials have done their job thoroughly and conscientiously here today, I regret that nobody except the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker)—part of whose speech I missed—spoke up for the motorist, asking tor work on the M4 to be accelerated. Apart from his speech—and I have sat through practically the whole debate—I do not remember much pressure from Government supporters for greater efforts to improve the roads either in the cities or between them.
The country notes that the Labour Party is still opposed to the motorist and those who use the roads. [Laughter.] Well, we judge by their words and their actions. They must be reminded, therefore, that, although the railways have great advantages in high speed, high density and high safety of their traffic, the roads have the advantage of flexibility, which is so useful in achieving the necessary manoeuvrability.
One knows that the right hon. Lady has presided over reductions in the road programme. She frequently says that the road programme which she is operating is the biggest that it has ever been. Of course it is—[Interruption.] I accept the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's tribute, it is the programme which we left them, the planning which we put through. I accept the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, who did so much to increase the road programme 26-fold in those 13 allegedly wasted years.

Mrs. Castle: From how much?

Mr. Webster: I will tell the right hon. Lady. It rose from the abysmal level of £6 million, which we inherited in 1951, by 26-fold. I regret that the Minister does not know the figure. We were well aware that in the pre-election period the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) wanted to do something to solve the problem. We gathered that from what he said about the programme at that time not being sufficient. He said that he, as Minister of Transport, would increase it. But he was not made Minister of Transport, something which I regret because I believe that he would have done rather better.

Mr. Manuel: Where is the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples)?

Mr. Webster: My right hon. Friend has been here for a great deal of the day. I understand that he left during one of the hon. Gentleman's many interruptions.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman has been putting his right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey on such a high pedestal that I wondered whether he knew where his right hon. Friend was today. After all, his right hon. Friend has been thrown out of the Conservative Central Office.

Mr. Webster: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the point he was trying to make. I repeat that my right hon. Friend was here, listening to the debate, for a great deal of the day. He has a great interest in these matters and I believe that he left the Chamber when the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was on his feet.
We then come to the problem of city roads. The White Paper, as usual, poses a number of questions. It poses them but it never gives any answers. In urban areas we must have traffic managers or commissioners—all the names are duplicated—who should be responsible for accelerating the flow of traffic; and the Minister was good enough to give my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester one of the best commercials he has had for a long time when she referred to the brilliant speech which he made at Swindon.
All this could be done by traffic engineering—accelerating the flow of traffic, more one-way streets, no right-hand turns where there are not one-way streets and by the process of tidal flow. Many of these things could be done on the worst roads in and out of our towns, and there arc many other aspects which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey started, such as the process of one-way streets over the bridges in London during the peak periods.
All that we get from the Minister is another authority, but nothing is said about how it will accelerate the flow of traffic. It is simply to be another body to assess, as far as one can see, what rate burden will have to be carried to subsidise more transport that is not necessarily being used efficiently. How much injustice will take place in the case of multiple conurbations, in the way in

which this rate burden will be spread? It is no great wonder to me that immediately before the Greater London Council election and other municipal elections the conurbation authority, with its rate burden, was not pressed very far by the right hon. Lady.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythington (Sir R. Cary), in an extremely helpful speech, talked about the problems of the buses and, with great prescience, referred to this backdoor method of nationalisation on which the Minister is embarked. He also talked about the investment allowance which was taken away from the buses and about Selective Employment Tax, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. All these are heavy burdens on bus operators. If there is to be a subsidy put on the buses, let us remember that already a very great deal indeed has been taken from them. The Minister spoke of the necessity to provide adequate bus and other public services, but the penalties which she has imposed on those who provide these facilities have been very considerable indeed.
Next one must consider the road haulier. He is the biggest of all the black sheep as far as the right hon. Lady is concerned. We know that hon. Gentlemen opposite hate the pioneering spirit of private enterprise—of people who are willing to place their own savings at risk. We know how much this section of private enterprise has satisfied the demand of people to have their goods moved in the way that they wish. We remember the Prime Minister's statement in America five years ago, when he said that it was the Labour Party's determination to squeeze them out not by overt and honest nationalisation by legislation but simply by placing crippling taxation on them, and then purchasing them.

Mr. George H. Perry: The last Tory Government put 2·4d. fuel tax on public transport.

Mr. Webster: I thank the hon. Member for that remark, but could we also remember what has happened to public transport services since 1964? We have had an increase in fuel duty on two occasions. We have had an increase in Excise Duty. We have had the taking away of the investment allowances. We have had the Selective Employment Tax.


Is there anything else the hon. Gentleman wants?
Let us now talk about the railways. I have always had the greatest and deepest desire that the railways should be rendered more profitable. or less unprofitable. They have had the great burden for many years of maintaining miles of track built in an age of no competing form of transport. We know that the railways, with their high speed, high density and great safety, can be used to convey passengers in express trains highly profitably, and they have very good and regular, sometimes hourly, services between our great cities. As a result they have increased their passenger income.
But passenger income is only one-third of the revenue side of British Railways. There is also the freight side. There is no other form of transport by which a whole train-load of mineral can be conveyed with just a driver and guard, of a drive, his mate and a guard. This is a most efficient method of transport. This development is being brought into the liner train. Here a good deal has to be done to secure speed, mancœuvreability and interchangeability between road and rail. This has been experimented with for many years. I remember that the first time I ever spoke in the House on transport we were discussing the problem of road-rail systems and experiments.
A third important factor is our ports. These have been referred to latterly in interesting speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) and by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Alldritt) and Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell). They have talked of the various characteristics of our ports. My hon. Friend pointed out that the Europoort in Rotterdam is a civic port, and I would say to hon. Members on both sides that there is room for civic ports in this country. We in the West Country take great pride in the achievements of Bristol as a civic port. It is a civic port which understands the needs of the city. The Minister talked of the catchment area of the port being limited to a motorway with a radius of 40 miles, and civic authorities will know whether this assessment is correct. Bristol and Rotterdam are civic ports and are amongst the

greatest successes we have seen in recent years. This is the age of the supertanker going further up the river to Tilbury and the Isle of Grain, and further into the estuaries of our great rivers.
Another development is the container vessel. The container is the greatest revolutionary achievement in transport, equivalent to the exploitation by Henry Ford of the assembly line. To the country that uses this development to the greatest commercial advantage goes the biggest prize. I do not think that I am overstating the case when I put it as strongly as that. As has already been said, there have been containers since the 'twenties and 'thirties, but they have now been made at an economic size of about 2,000 sq. ft. They can be interchangeable from road to rail to ship.
This conception is colossal. A product can go straight from Birmingham by container either by rail or road to the port, on to the vessel, and into the heart of the market. The whole of our exporting practice will have to change to keep in line with this development. In fact, the title of this White Paper should be "Transport Policy in a Container Age". We must create the infrastructure and the social and mental situation in which containers are used to the greatest advantage. Yet we have the National Union of Railwaymen by a small majority voting against free access to the freightliner depots. As a result, the railways are starved of a very large section of their potential market. I would say to the National Union of Railwaymen that it is not in the interests of the railways' efforts to get as many customers as quickly as possible.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Gentleman makes a mistake in thinking that it is a very small majority of railwaymen who are against the freightliner depots being open terminals. The great majority are in favour of closed terminals, because they feel that, in the container age, any extra business should be kept within the orbit of British Railways and British Road Services, thus going some way to eliminating the existing deficit.

Mr. Webster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for contributing to this discussion. He will remember that the voting of the union last time was 13 to


11 in favour of closed terminals, and that is a very narrow margin. [Interruption.] No doubt the Executive of the N.U.R. represents the feelings of its members. If it does not, its members ought to do something about it. It is for the National Union of Railwaymen to make sure that its Executive is elected democratically. [Interruption.] I have just been told that it did not represent the views of its members, or under-represented those views.
The point is that we have this wonderful innovation. No one in the House has denied that it is one of the greatest developments of our railways, ports, and the whole transport system, and it is essential to the commercial survival of the country. Yet we find closed depots and the denial of freedom of access. That has gone on for years, and it is getting near to industrial blackmail.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Will the hon. Gentleman take the first opportunity of putting in writing what he has just said about the election of members of the Executive of the National Union of Railwaymen and sending it to the General Secretary for him to deal with?

Mr. Webster: I am always glad to circulate my speeches, but the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) knows how to apply for copies of HANSARD, and he can help himself.
The Prime Minister has said repeatedly in his gritty speeches up and down the country that he was not going to have Luddism and industrial revanchism holding up our commercial development. There was a railway dispute some time ago, and he summoned the railwaymen when he thought that there were prospects of a settlement. In the case of one trade union, I believe that he did not even know that its representatives had arrived, and they were ignored. It was a thoroughly ham-handed performance, and the settlement was pushed through quickly that night.
On 20th July the Prime Minister said that the great thing which we were going to do in getting the economic position of this country put right was to get open terminals for the freightliner trains. By saying that, he acknowledged that this is the key to the development of our trans-

port system. We have had industrial blackmail ever since, and the critical case is that of Tartan Arrow, which we saw a fortnight ago. That is the kind of pernicious form of industrial blackmail which we have seen. I cannot understand why the Minister of Transport cannot or will not do anything about it.
The Prime Minister has said that he would settle the problem at once and settle it urgently. That was said over six months ago, but nothing has been achieved, and we feel that the Minister is either conniving at this or is incapable of doing anything about it.
Tartan Arrow run a private enterprise built freightliner service. It was absolutely first-class and was doing very well. It was, to the extent of 75 per cent., taken over by the British Transport Holding Company. The Holding Company brought the management with it by letting it retain 25 per cent. of the shares. When the union heard about this and thought that there was the slightest chance of private enterprise having some contribution in the development of the freightliner service, the union declared it black. Within two days it was taken over by this Minister. On what authority? We would very much like to know.
If this is the attitude that prevails throughout this Government, it is not one which is good for freedom of enterprise in this country. The blackmailing practices of unions must be made to stop. The Government are not able to do it.
I recommend to my hon. Friends that we deplore a White Paper which does nothing to accelerate the road programme, does nothing to improve the rôle of the railways and give service to the customer, does nothing to modernise the docks and speed our exports; but, instead, sets up three or four different authorities achieving no purpose, planning nothing usefully, and simply developing Socialism by underground and tortuous methods.

9.0 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): It would be generally agreed that we have had a wide-ranging and, on the whole, well-informed debate on transport policy and that, apart from the few sounds of fury which we expect on such occasions, generally the atmosphere has been significantly one of non-censure.


We in the Ministry will study the detailed points made by hon. Members with which I am not able to deal tonight and will reply, as we normally do, to hon. Members on the particular local and constituency details.
I do not think that it was wise for the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) to try to make up in spleen for what he lacked in policy. The House is a bit sick and tired of personal attacks on and misrepresentation of my right hon. Friend, but I appreciate that some may have to indulge in these if they are lacking in other material to contribute.
One would not, on the whole, have guessed from the Opposition's speeches that theirs is the responsibility for failing to make the Ministry of Transport a planning department. They were the people who disintegrated the publicly-owned transport industries and services, culminating in the 1962 Statute. Theirs was the drift whilst car ownership increased from 3 million to over 8 million, and only belatedly was a road programme adopted commensurate with that growth. Theirs was the entirely inadequate capital investment in ports and docks, to the facts of which I shall come later. They are the gentlemen who should persistently appear in sackcloth and ashes, though even then they would not atone for all the sins that we inherited.
I turn to one or two facts. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) presented himself in the guise of a practical man who was not interested in all these theories and in new organisations and machinery: he was interested in practical facts. In the process of his exposition, the fluency of which we all admired. we noticed that his respect for facts left something to be desired. Let me put it on record that the annual total expenditure, under the heading of roads, on major improvements and new roads for the last four years of Tory rule was £88 million. Last year it was £182 million. That is a fact.

Mr. Peter Walker: Instead of giving the average, let us have the last year or the year before under the Conservative Government.

Mr. Swingler: I am taking the record of the party opposite because the hon.

Member for Worcester made various—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheating."]—it is not cheating at all. I shall be only to glad to do what I have done before at this Box and lay out the year-by-year figures of road expenditure. I just want to put on record now the fact that highway expenditure in 1965–66 was £182 million. It is also a fact that we have today under my right hon. Friend the biggest roads programme the country has ever had.
In Britain at present there are schemes to a capital value of over £600 million in course of construction. That is an indisputable fact, just as it is an indisputable fact that for England alone the value of schemes under construction programmed by my right hon. Friend and in the preparation pool of schemes committed amounts today to £4,000 million.
The hon. Member for Worcester might, perhaps, listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), who made such a plea for more forward programming in the preparation of road schemes in order to give contractors a better chance of continuity in their work. This is precisely what my right hon. Friend is now doing in making the preparation pool of schemes on which the hon. Member for Worcester pours such cold water. He is not interested in such things.
The hon. Gentleman made another misstatement of fact—I call it only that—when he implied that my right hon. Friend was presiding over a reduction of road programme expenditure and that this was the first time it had happened. I draw his attention to the fact that in 1959–60 Exchequer expenditure on new road construction was £59 million and in 1960–61, under his right hon. Friend's Administration, it fell to £57 million. So there is another of his misstatements.

Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman has just accused me of misstatement. So far, he has not quoted one misstatement in what I said. I said that there was never a time during the 13 years of Conservative Government when the road building programme as a programme was cut. There was never a time when the Treasury actually cut the programme.

Mr. Swingler: The figures I have given—the hon. Gentleman can check on them


himself—for 1959–60 and 1960–61 show that Exchequer expenditure, national expenditure, on the road construction programme fell during those two years.
The hon. Gentleman asserted in his speech that this is the first time it has happened. He made a statement also about die 1967–68 Estimates, saying that, while public expenditure generally was rising by 11 per cent., road expenditure was to rise by only 6 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's reading of the Vote on Account figures is not accurate. He has overlooked the grants transferred to the rate support grant. The actual increase in Exchequer expenditure on major improvements for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, as shown by those Estimates, is 30 per cent.

Mr. Peter Walker: In a Written Answer given by the hon. Gentleman himself to a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith), on 18th July last, we were told that the total amount of money spent on new construction and major improvements in 1959–60 was £72 million and in 1960–61. the year when, according to the hon. Gentleman, there was a cut, it was £75 million. Taking the figure for maintenance and minor improvements, the total in 1959–60 was £85 million and in 1960–61 it was £90 million.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Swingler: I have nothing to withdraw. I gave quite correctly—in fact, the figure came to nearly £90 million—the average figure of Exchequer expenditure for four years. That was the figure I quoted. The hon. Gentleman now quotes a figure of £90 million. All right. Let us take that figure. The fact is that the expenditure for 1965–66 is over £180 million. That demonstrates that, whatever aspersions the hon. Gentleman makes, my right hon. Friend is carrying out the biggest roads programme at the highest rate of national expenditure on roads the country has ever had, and I do not withdraw one word from that.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] It is no good hon. Members opposite making so much noise, when the hon. Gentleman made misstatements to try to suggest that my right hon. Friend was in some way diminishing road expenditure. She is en

larging it. He suggested that she has diminished preparations. She has enormously enlarged them.
Judged by the rate of expenditure, the capital value of construction schemes, or the numbers committed for preparation—by all those tests my right hon. Friend is promoting the biggest road programme the country has ever had. We know that all the problems cannot be solved by road expenditure alone, and that is precisely why we need to set up conurbation transport authorities as urgently as we can pass the laws, and I take to heart the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). Hon. Members ask what is the point of conurbation transport authorities. The whole point is to bring together round the table the highway planners, the traffic managers and the transport operators so that they plan together.
That is the essence of tackling the problem of congestion in the cities, which we have inherited and which will be one of the most complex problems the country faces for a long time to come. because 80 per cent. of the people live in towns which occupy about one-tenth of the land area. That is the problem of developing car ownership, and that is why we must bring together the road planners, traffic engineers and transport operators to plan jointly how they will make the most economical use of road space in urban areas, planning highway schemes to get the greatest value from them, and planning how we shall arrest the decline of public transport and revive it, because that is the most economical way to use the road space.
That is also the reason why, as many of my hon. Friends said, we want to make maximum use of the railways. We are very grateful for the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley), Glasgow, Spring-burn (Mr. Buchanan) and Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker), who made important contributions on the railway policy put forward by my right hon. Friend in her White Paper. Taking up a point from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, I should like to say a word about the use of the manufacturing capacities of the nationalised transport


industries. I assure my hon. Friends that we intend to free the nationalised transport industries to engage in commercial activities on the widest basis and to get rid of the statutory restrictions artificially imposed on them, so that the maximum use can be made of their assets and they can make a contribution to the country's export endeavours.

Mr. Galbraith: Will they be competing equally or be subsidised out of the public purse?

Mr. Swingler: As I have said, they will be doing so on a commercial basis. We have had discussions about this and we are quite clear that the manufacturing workshops and so on of the nationalised transport industries will be freed of artificial restrictions and will be able to compete for orders and develop the use of their assets on the widest possible basis.
My right hon. Friend has put forward a scheme for the stabilisation of the railway network. All that has been said in the debate only underlines the need for getting a settlement as quickly as possible on the basis of which the managers of the railways can concentrate on the development of new technology, on the most efficient running of the railways and on the improvement of productivity and getting the highest possible level of usage of the railways in order to relieve congestion on the roads. It is clear that, in that process—and this is how my right hon. Friend views the problem of the closure of services—we must take into account the balance of social costs and social benefits.
It is the essence of the policy and approach of my right hon. Friend to judge the question of the services of British Railways not on the basis of a narrow balance of revenue against costs but on the kind of social benefits and significance which the network can have. This factor was missing in the days of the Beeching Plan and it is one that we are determined to take into account.
That is why we are determined to develop British Railways in conjunction with this new and integrated service, the national freight organisation. Some hon. Members have suggested that there might be some conflict of interest between these

organisations. So far as we are concerned, these organisations will have identical interests in running the railways in conjunction with road services under public ownership to offer the best service to the customer and make the most economic use of the assets at their disposal.
I want to turn now to the subject of ports. A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Portsmouth Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd), my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Alldritt) have raised questions about modernisation and reorganisation of ports. I put these figures again on the record. Port investment between 1952 and 1964 averaged about £18 million a year. Since the present Government took office, it has been rising rapidly, to £26½ million in 1965 and about £38 million in 1966. We hope this year to raise the level of annual capital investment to some £45 million, to be spent on vitally needed modernisation in Britain's port service so that it can play the key part that it has to play in the export drive.
In so doing, we are at the same time ensuring that there is a flexible approach to the planning of the ports so that full account can be taken of the rapid changes in techniques which are appearing, especially the container revolution. To help speed this process, my right hon. Friend announced last week that the Government have decided to increase the amount of grant available in the next two financial years by accelerating the payment of grants to the port authorities by six months between now and April, 1969, to assist them to get on with the job.
We have in this country a ports system which is in every sense mixed. Virtually all our major ports are in some form of public ownership, some under the British Transport Docks Board, which is one of the most outstandingly successful nationalised undertakings in the country. Others are run by public trusts, many of them under forward-looking managements, but their full efficiency may be hampered in some cases by their outdated constitutions which often are determined by the users. The public trust does not carry the same measure of


accountability to the public as applies in the nationally-owned ports. We also have municipally-owned ports, some of which are often prosperous examples of local authority enterprise.
This diversity of function makes it impossible to operate a policy of unified construction and control unless we integrate the ports as a whole with the rest of the transport system and the economic structure of the country. Unless and until this is done we shall not get the full value needed from this immense capital investment. The National Ports Council as doing a great deal to help us achieve this objective of establishing an integrated structure, and in carrying out new schemes. We hope to announce a decision very shortly on the Council's scheme for reorganising the ports of the Forth. An inquiry will be held into the Humber scheme and the scheme for Southampton Water reorganisation has just been published.
What the Government have now to do is to achieve the right balance between central policy control, in the form of a national ports authority, and local responsibility. We want to preserve as much local autonomy as we can. Very soon we shall be putting our ideas to the many interests involved, as part of the process of consultation leading to legislation. This will be one of the biggest issues confronting this Parliament.
I wish to say something further about public passenger transport. As my right hon. Friend said, we intend to make a start with the integration of public transport in the conurbations through conurbation transport authorities. These are the places where the problem of congestion is most acute, and we want to gain experience there before we introduce far-reaching structural changes through the rest of the country. May I say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Withington that the question of the pattern of ownership in the conurbations in the future is something to be determined by technical considerations, when we get these authorities established. We are providing new machinery for the whole of the country.
My right hon. Friend has taken the important step of launching regional passenger transport co-ordinating committees, about which announcements have been made. To these bodies we are giving

the practical task of bringing about relatively simple reforms, which we believe can contribute a great deal to the convenience and comfort of travellers They will be concerned with matching up bus and rail timetables, and persuading local authorities to undertake traffic schemes designed to give buses a better chance in crowded streets and to promote the introduction of improved interchange facilities.
One would think from some of the speeches made from the other side of the House, notably by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester, that there was nothing to lie done in this area. I wish that they could see the postbag of my right hon. Friend from all over the country, complaining about the lack of co-ordination on such simple things as timetabling, the organisation of traffic controls in relation to public transport operations, and other things.

Mr. John Page: The hon. Gentleman mentioned technical considerations which will determine whether there shall be private enterprise undertakings running alongside State undertakings in the conurbation areas. What are these technical considerations?

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman knows very well. I do not know if he was here When I was talking about the constitution of conurbation transport authorities as a means of bringing together the road planners, the traffic controllers and the public transport operators. We know that there is a variety of schemes of ownership—national, municipal and private—in these conurbations. Having set up these authorities, the question then is how to bring about the best possible co-ordination and integration of the services, and what, as a result of technical considerations, is the best pattern of ownership and control? My right hon. Friend has been having consultations with local authorities about this.
We have given the transport co-ordinating committees the task of promoting the objectives of immediate co-ordination. They will be a means of investigating the related matters, especially the need to restore public transport in the rural areas. Our Tory predecessors had the Jack Report which as long ago as 1961 analysed this problem and proposed a solution, but they did nothing about it.


The White Paper announced our intention to bring in a system of joint grants between the local authorities and central Government to subsidise essential rural bus services which operators can no longer finance at a loss out of their own resources. We have decided that these grants should be on a 50–50 basis—50 per cent. from the Exchequer and 50 per cent. from the local authorities. The plan is based on the principle that the initiative is local. It should come from the local authorities. They should decide which services are essential for the benefit of their rural community and put plans to my right hon. Friend. We shall want to be satisfied that there is a genuine social need to be met and that this can be done at reasonable cost. This, together with the capital grants being introduced by the Minister for the improvement of equipment and infrastructure, will provide an opportunity to prevent the decline of rural bus services to a level where they are negligible.

Mr. Bessell: The Minister referred to the continued existence of the railway lines through Cornwall. I asked a specific question about whether the rail passenger service would be equally guaranteed.

Mr. Swingler: There is a reference to that in the White Paper, but as my time is short I shall take further means

of informing the hon. Gentleman on this subject.

My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has introduced, in Montgomeryshire, in Wales, the rural mail bus as the first experiment in this respect. He intends that it should be the first of a series of six experiments at places to be chosen in consultation between the Departments. The second is likely to be in Devon or Cornwall. This is a further example of our flexible approach in trying to tackle the problem of the decline of services in rural districts.

Integration does not only mean the big things in transport—the national freight organisation and public ownership of the ports. It is intimately connected with the work of these co-ordinating committees —trains, buses and other developments. My right hon. Friend and I have tried to show today that we are administering a Ministry which is determined to make an overall plan and to plan far-sightedly for the future. We have tried to show that the integration of transport is not a vague phrase meaning all things to all men. It is a practical policy in the form of the solutions which we are putting forward to plan the system at local, regional and national level. We ask the House to endorse it.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 233.

Division No. 276.]
AYES
[9.28 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bradley, Tom
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Albu, Austen
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brooks, Edwin
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)


Alldritt, Walter
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Allen, Scholefield
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey


Anderson, Donald
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Delargy, Hugh


Archer, Peter
Buchan, Norman
Dell, Edmund


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dempsey, James


Ashley, Jack
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dewar, Donald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Cant, R. B.
Dickens, James


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Carmichael, Neil
Dobson, Ray


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Doig, Peter


Barnett, Joel
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Donnelly, Desmond


Baxter, William
Chapman, Donald
Driberg, Tom


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Coe, Denis
Dunn, James A.


Bence, Cyril
Coleman, Donald
Dunnett, Jack


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Concannon, J. D.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Conlan, Bernard
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Eadie, Alex


Binns, John
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Nees (Caerphilly)


Bishop, E. S.
Crawshaw, Richard
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Blackburn, F.
Cronin, John
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ellis, John


Boardman, H.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
English, Michael


Booth, Albert
Dalyell, Tam
Ennals, David


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Ensor, David


Boyden, James
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Braddosk, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)




Faulds, Andrew
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Fernyhough,E.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Randall, Harry


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rankin, John


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Redhead, Edward


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lipton, Marcus
Reynolds, G. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Floud, Bernard
Loughlin, Charles
Richard, Ivor


Foley, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Ford, Ben
McBride, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Forrester, John
McCann, John
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Fowler, Gerry
MacColl, James
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacDermot, Niall
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Macdonald, A. H.
Roebuck, Roy


Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rose, Paul




Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Gardner, Tony
Mackie, John
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Garrett, W. E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Ryan, John


Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Sheldon, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Gregory, Arnold
Manuel, Archie
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mapp, Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Marquand, David
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mason, Roy
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Skeffington, Arthur


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Robert
Slater, Joseph


Hamling, William
Mendelson, J. J.
Small, William


Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce
Snow, Julian


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Steele,Thomas(Dunbartonshire,W.)


Haseldine, Norman
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hattersley, Roy
Molloy, William
Stonehouse, John


Hazell, Bert
Moonman, Eric
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Swain, Thomas


Henig, Stanley
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swingler, Stephen


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Symonds, J. B.


Hobden, Dennis (Brighten, K'town)
Moyle, Roland
Taverns, Dick


Hooley, Frank
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Horner, John
Murrary, Albert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Neal, Harold
Thornton, Ernest


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Newens, Stan
Tinn, James


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Tomney, Frank


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Tuck, Raphael


Howie, W.
Norwood, Christopher
Urwin, T. W.


Hoy, James
Oakes, Gordon
Varley, Eric G.


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Albert E.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice
Wallace, George


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hynd, John
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wellbeloved, James


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se Spenb'gh)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Padley, Walter
Whitaker, Ben


Janner, Sir Barnett
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.
Whitlock, William


Jeger, George (Goole)
Palmer, Arthur
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wilkins, W. A.


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Park, Trevor
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Winnick, David


Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman
Winterbottom, R. E.


Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Woof, Robert


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Leadbitter, Ted
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Yates, Victor


Ledger, Ron
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)



Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, William (Rugby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lee, John (Reading)
Probers, Arthur
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Grey.


Lestor, Miss Joan






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Balniel, Lord


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian


Astor, John
Baker, W. H. K.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton







Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bessell, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nott, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Onslow, Cranley


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Body, Richard
Hay, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Llonel
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pardoe, John


Braine, Bernard
Heseltine, Michael
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Brewis, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Peel, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hill, J. E. B.
Peyton, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bryan, Paul
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pink, R. Bonner


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pounder, Rafton


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hooson, Emlyn
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Prior, J. M. L.


Campbell, Gordon
Hornby, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Carlisle, Mark
Horner, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cary, Sir Robert
Hunt, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clark, Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooke, Robert
Jerkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cordle, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Roots, William


Corfield, F. V.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott, Nicholas


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Cunningham, Sir Knox
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Currie, G. B. H.
Kirk, Peter
Sinclair, Sir George


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, John


Dance, James
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stainton, Keith


Davidson,James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lambton, Viscount
Stodart, Anthony


d'Avidgor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, col. C. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Taylor, Edwart M.(G'gow, Cathcart)




Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Doughty, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Teeling, Sir William


Eden, Sir John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longden, Gilbert
Thorpe, Jeremy


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Loveys, W. H.
Tilney, John


Errington, Sir Eric
Lubbock, Eric
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Eyre, Reginald
McAdden, Sir Stephen
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Fisher, Nigel
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fortescue, Tim
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Foster, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Madden, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maginnis, John E.
Wall, Patrick


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walters, Dennis


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maude, Angus
Weatherill, Bernard


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mawby, Ray
Webster, David


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Goodhew, Victor
Maydon, Lt.Cmdr. S. L. C.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Grant, Anthony
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gresham-Cooke, R.
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Woodnutt, Mark


Gurden, Harold
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wylie, N. R.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Younger, Hn. George


Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Murton, Oscar



Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pym and Mr. More.

Resolved,


That this House approves the proposals contained in the statement on Transport Policy (Command Paper No. 3057).

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Bill, the Plant Health Bill [Lords] and the Forestry Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE (BORROWING POWERS) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 15th February].

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF BORROWING POWERS.)

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 12, to leave out '£1,750' and insert '£1,500'.—[Mr. Webster.]

Question again proposed, That '£1,750' stand part of the Clause.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: when the morning session of Wednesday, 15th February came to an end I was on my feet, in full flight as it were, complaining of the delay of the repairs service in the telephone service. The Committee was debating an Amendment to reduce the borrowing powers of the Post Office from the range of £1,750 million to £2,200 million to the range of £1,500 million to £1,900 million. These Amendments are a Parliamentary device, first for ascertaining from a Minister to what purpose he proposes to devote the extra money which he wishes his Department to borrow and, secondly, a device for drawing attention to grievances concerning the service given by the existing system.
I was drawing attention to the delays in telephone service repairs. I trust that it will not be a matter of tedious repetition but will rather give continuity to the debate if I quote the last few lines of what I said as reported in HANSARD at column 572 for 15th February, 1967. I said:

One also has to put up with delays in getting repairs carried out. Some little time ago my telephone went out of order, and it took 10 days to repair it. The repairers then came and put a strange wire all round my house in the course of repairing the telephone. I had never had that wire there before, and, following the re-connection of the telephone, during the last few days each time I have had a call on my telephone there has been sound of a lifted receiver somewhere else, and deep breathing.
I asked:
Am I being tapped? I want to know about this. I want to know why the repairs took so long—".
Then there was the rubric as reported in HANSARD:
It being half-past Twelve o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1967; Vol. 741, c. 573.]
I suppose Independent Television might call that a natural break. There certainly was an unnatural break in my telephone service. Or, as the schoolboy magazines might have described it, with the heroine roped to the railway lines and the express train rapidly approaching, this was a case of "Do not miss the exciting and thrilling instalment in next week's issue".

9.45 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: We are all agog.

Mr. Page: As my hon. Friend says, we are all agog, and I propose to continue with the exciting instalment which fully confirms my allegation of inefficiency in the telephone repair service. The serial is that every time I endeavour to telephone my home number, 3579, from my office, a neighbour of mine, whose number is 9079, answers the phone. After several endeavours of this sort I had the bright idea last week of dialling my neighbour's number, 9079, and sure enough I got through to my own home, 3579. There is a simple explanation. In the course of the repairs the two telephones were joined to the wrong wires, so for several days my neighbour and I told each other's callers to ring the other one's telephone number.
The strange wire around my house was about 3 feet above the ground. It was gleaming white, with a junction box also at about the same height, all of it in full view of anyone who stood at the garden


gate, and rather a temptation to anyone who might have been inclined to break into the house to disconnect it.
Again the explanation was fairly simple. When the Post Office Engineers' Department sent someone to repair my phone, it sent a non-ladder man, instead of a ladder man. I understand that the repair service is divided between these two categories. I do not know the priority of employment between these two, whether the ladder man is higher up the ladder than the non-ladder man in the case of employment, but after waiting 10 days for repairs I got a non-ladder man, and, being a non-ladder man, he put the wire at only three feet from the ground and the junction box at the same height, so of course there was the junction box and the wire for anybody to cut. In case any burglars happen to read HANSARD, I hasten to say that after a few more days of pestering the Post Office Engineers' Department, and receiving a call from two inspectors of that Department, the installation is no longer in that tempting position. On the next occasion a ladder man was sent to do the job.
I must point out that throughout this incident I had the utmost courtesy and co-operation from the Post Office employees so far as the rules of their employment laid down for them allowed. This experience has confirmed what I said in the course of the earlier part of my speech a week ago, namely, that the public is not getting the service from the loyalty of the Post Office employees which it ought to get. There is bad management, and nothing wrong with the employees themselves. I said on the last occasion, referring to Post Office employees:
They are a very good crowd, and very loyal to the service, and the public are not getting the benefit of that loyalty because of the management of the Post Office as it exists at the moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1967; Vol. 471, c. 572.]
I now wish to refer to another part of the Post Office service. In my constituency, the parcel post is very important because there are firms there like Little-woods Mail Order Stores, a printer of race cards who sends out bundles of these each day—in which case, time is of

the essence—and a public library contractor who tries to get books to public libraries through the parcel post. I have many other constituents of that type.
I receive frequent complaints of delays in the parcel post. I have, of course, taken this up with the local head postmaster and the explanation which I receive almost every time is that the parcels leave the hands of Post Office employees and become the charge of British Railways—that, for a certain part of their journey, they are no longer controlled by the Post Office but by British Railways. I am told that this is where the delay occurs.
Surely it would be possible for Post Office employees to handle Post Office packets and parcels throughout their whole journey and for the Post Office not to rely on the ordinary loaders and un-loaders of British Railways. This seems to be where very serious delays frequently occur.
I apologise to the Committee if I am making too much of a constituency speech, but I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members have had complaints from their constituencies about many cases of inefficiency of postal deliveries and collections. The efficiency of the delivery system seems to be in inverse proportion to the number of different stamp designs produced. I do not think that the public are concerned so much with the design of stamps on their letters as with whether their letters are delivered and collected from the boxes punctually.
During the last year, I have received many complaints from constituents that morning deliveries are an hour or so later than they used to be, and that the last evening collections arc an hour or so earlier. The most annoying alteration of all is the closing of post offices at lunchtime. Local authorities in my constituency have complained of this to the Postmaster-General. It causes great inconvenience for those with fixed times of work, who can get away to a post office only at lunchtime.
If there were any real economy in this, if it were a matter of applying work study and organisation and method to the Post Office, if there were any real reduction in cost and increase in efficiency from this, I would not complain——

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: is the hon. Member not aware that this is one of the outstanding features of organisation and methods study, which recommended earlier closing to get greater efficiency?

Mr. Page: I do not know who recommended it—whether it was organisation and method employees of the Post Office or a separate outside firm—but, on the figures for the Liverpool area, it seems as though their advice is a failure.
The figures are as follows. There are 27 post offices in the Liverpool area which are now closed at lunchtime. I asked the Assistant Postmaster-General for the amount of saving in this case. I was told that there was a saving of about £6,500 a year as a result of closing 27 post offices during lunchtime. This gives an average of about £240 per year for each post office. If my mathematics are correct, since there are 307 working days in the year, that represents a saving each working day by closing a post office of the enormous sum of 16s. 2½d. That is the amount being saved per day as a result of closing an important and well-patronised post office in my constituency. This paltry saving is wholly disproportionate to the inconvenience caused to the public, particularly to shop, office and other workers with fixed times of employment.
Hon. Members talked earlier about the great developments of science that are being applied to the Post Office services —satellites in space, great improvements in the commercial services, the giro system and so on. The position might be likened to that old joke about the medical profession; that medical science has greatly advanced in cardiac operations, cancer research, kidney grafting, dealing with blue babies and so on, but it cannot cure the common cold. That joke has a ring of truth when applied to some aspects of the Post Office. I suggest that the Post Office should get down to becoming efficient in the simple things which affect people every day, such as the mail and telephone services.
Something which affects my constituents every day is local radio, and I conclude by asking the Postmaster-General whether he is ready to announce that there will be a local radio station on Merseyside.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: We are discussing a considerable sum of money—a new borrowing levy to be increased by £430 million, with provision to increase it by £450 million by an Order of this House. This is no mean sum at a time of general restraint, although we are glad to hear that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) the post office is making a daily saving of 16s. 2½d.
The Government must face the fact that criticism of the Post Office is running at a high level indeed. I cannot remember a time in the 25 years I have been in Parliament when I have received more complaints from my constituents about the various postal services. I am not attempting to apportion blame for this, but when I pass on these complaints I receive polite letters from the Department, which do not convince my constituents who find that their mail arrives later and later.
A considerable amount of information about the postal services generally is provided in Cmnd. 2931, which sets out many of the things the Post Office is trying to do, although I appreciate that some of these will take time to put into effect. We read about a mysterious 8 per cent. target and I hope that we will be told tonight exactly what it means. We are also told that immediate action is being taken, but when we read on we see that this means only an increase in postal charges, another matter about which I receive many complaints from my constituents. Having been informed that a detailed study has been carried out by Mackenzie & Co., I am glad to note that there is to be a profit-improving programme throughout the country. We certainly hope that it will produce a result before very long. We also have this rather strange Irish phrase that refers to the "more permanent use of part-time staff." That seems a rather odd way of putting it, although I think I can see what the Post Office is driving at.
10.0 p.m.
These criticisms are serious, and I hope that the Postmaster-General, who is looking rather sceptical, will take them seriously, particularly the complaint of delays in postal deliveries. I know from my own experience that letters between


London and my constituency take longer than they used to do, and my constituents write giving me endless examples. There always seems to be a good excuse given for this. Everyone knows the difficulties of getting adequate sorting staff, but this is a grievance of the public, particularly at a time when the charges have gone up so much. There is a special resentment about the increase in postal and telegraphic charges.
I have a particular cause of complaint in my constituency. In the village of Walditch, on the outskirts of Bridport, there was a sub-post office for 38 years. Because of difficulties relating to planning permission, there was a short lapse, and the Postmaster-General took the opportunity to close the office altogether. When I went there I found very great resentment, particularly among the large number of old-age pensioners there who are now obliged to walk a mile each way to the nearest post office.
The Postmaster-General may think that this is quite all right, but I can assure him that it is a very great hardship for some of these pensioners, who find it very difficult to walk such a distance. Of course, in an area like that, bus services do not exist. When I went to the place where the new office will be in the rebuilt village shop I was met by about 40 constituents. If the Postmaster-General could have heard what they had to say, I am sure that his ears would have been burning.
I do not regard the right hon. Gentleman as a harsh man normally and I beg him to look at this matter again, and send some Post Office official to see what the position really is. The situation arose only because the old Post Office had to close before planning permission came through for the rebuilding, and there was a lapse of 12 months or so. The Postmaster-General was then able to close the sub-office in Walditch, a growing village which had got used to these facilities. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the alternative facilities are not easy.
The Postmaster-General admits, as can be seen from col. 837 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 20th January last, that the quality and reliability of the customer services can do with improvement. He is now asking for a very large sum of

money, and the House is entitled to look very carefully into the whole matter. The right hon. Gentleman referred on Second Reading to the fact that the postal service would soon be conducted by a public corporation and said, indeed, that it might not be necessary for all this money to be used while the service is under its present administration.
If that is the case, it makes one wonder whether the rather modest reductions I have proposed are not worth while. We are living in a time of restraint. These reductions would only mean that the Postmaster-General would have to come back to the House a few months earlier to explain how far he had been successful in improving these services about which we are receiving complaints. I therefore have no hesitation in hoping that some of my hon. Friends will draw attention on this occasion—one of the few occasions we have for raising these matters—to the complaints of their constituents.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I welcome the Bill and the extension of the borrowing powers of the Post Office. In my experience of complaints from constituents, the services of the Post Office are those about which I receive the least number.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: That is because the hon. Gentleman never gets the letters.

Mr. Bence: I get plenty of letters, and I get complaints, though they do not come from the constituency as a whole. They come principally from the new town of Cumbernauld which is in my constituency. That new towns has developed rapidly and often ahead of Post Office planning. I receive complaints from constituents living there that the rapid construction of commercial premises and new houses has resulted in a waiting list for telephones and even a delay in establishing sub-post offices in the town. Those are the only complaints which I have had in the last 10 years about the Post Office.
Any complaints which I have had about late deliveries have been in relation to deliveries from London. On investigation, it has been found that the delays have occurred in the London area itself, and very often have been due to difficulties in recruiting a labour force


in that area. One can understand that, with the number of service industries in the South and South-East, it must be increasingly difficult, as a result of the Conservative Government's policy on labour recruitment, for such services as the Post Office to recruit staff in competition with industry.
In every case which I have taken up concerning my constituency of East Dunbartonshire, on examination it has been found that the delay has arisen in the London area. In East Dunbartonshire itself, it is only in the new town of Cumbernauld that there is any complaint about the lack of postal facilities.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will use his extra borrowing power to concentrate on the rapidly developing new towns so that the Post Office facilities can keep pace with other development in those towns.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: There is one aspect of Post Office expenditure which I wish to raise and that is the proposal to introduce the giro system. The Postmaster-General knows that I have been interested in that since before the Government decided to adopt such a system and announced it in the House. I want to find out more about the nature of the service which it is proposed to introduce, because the Government have stated that they will bring it in in the autumn of 1968, which is only about 18 months hence.
On Second Reading, I raised a number of points, and the Postmaster-General has been good enough to write to me about them. I wish to develop only one inquiry about it tonight, but it is an important one. It is the extent to which money can be transmitted by the service which the Government now propose.
The White Paper on a Giro System, which the Government produced in August, 1965, said that it was likely that initially the new service would prove most attractive to those firms and organisations which received a large number of remittances. I agree entirely. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was one of the reasons which I advanced in advocating the adoption of a giro system.
Paragraph 17 of the White Paper went on to say:
In addition a giro will provide for every-one cheap facilities for cash remittances of any amount through the Post Office at present available only to Government Departments.
The words to which I draw attention particularly are "for any amount". When speaking from the Front Bench in the debate in which the announcement about the adoption of the giro sysem was made, the former Postmaster-General assured the House that, according to the calculations at that time, it could be easily operated economically. He made an optimistic forecast of the return on capital with what I would regard as a minimum number of accounts. I quote what the previous Postmaster-General said on 21st July, 1965:
… on our basis of calculation at the moment it would be possible not just to break even, but to get an 8 per cent. return over the long run on a giro system with as few as 1¼ million giro account holders with an average balance of only £100 and £150."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 1635.]
Subsequent to that, this blue book entitled "The National Giro" was produced to acquaint the public and firms with what was proposed. It says on page 7 regarding firms using the system:
The firm will receive each day all the orders on giro in payment and transfer forms together with the daily statement as the accounting document. There will be no cheques and postal orders to bank".
These statements give an indication that there would be a free and easy transfer of money, particularly in small amounts. This blue book entitled "The National Giro" also states that the minimum amount which could be transferred would be 5s. The blue book states that the giro account system would be particularly suitable for a mail order system. I agree that the giro system is particularly suitable for a mail order system.
This is the question which I must put to the Government. Does the minimum transfer of 5s. apply to all transactions such as a mail order system? If so, quite a number of orders cannot be covered. What about the packets of seeds which are advertised and which people want to buy at 6d. a packet? People do not necessarily want to buy 5s. worth with one order. The right hon. Gentleman may say that there may not be many of these, but once a postal order system is mixed up with the giro system it will


not be complete and it will be consequently less efficient.
The system would be advantageous for paying bills, perhaps to an electricity board, perhaps to a large department store, the bills being paid by the month. However, some of the bills might well be less than 5s. Is it to be a rigid limit that no sums of less than 5s. will be payable under the giro system? I am not sure whether the point about the minimum transfer will cover all such operations. Will there be exceptions so that a large body such as an electrity board, with a large number of individual customers, will be able to use the system with no minimum limit so that sums of ls. 6d., 4s. 6d., and so on, can be transferred? This is what systems in other countries can do. I do not think there is any other country which has a limit of 5s. One or two countries have a limit but it is only about 6d.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my hon. Friend draw the Postmaster-General's attention to the fact that dividends of pools firms could be paid if the limit were to be lower than 5s.? Some of the third and fourth dividends in recent weeks have been well below 5s. I say that from personal experience.

Mr. Campbell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on winning. I am sorry that his win was not a good one. The pools were in my mind, but more, perhaps, from the point of view of people sending their stakes in. It may be that the Government particularly want to avoid the pools becoming involved in the giro system.
I ask the Government to explain whether the 5s. limit on transfers applies toevery transaction which will be carried out under the giro system. If so, it will be a great deal less efficient and useful to the country than giro systems in other countries with which some of us are acquainted.
In the debate on 21st July, 1965, the previous Postmaster-General spoke to the effect that the postal order system was completely out of date. He indicated that it would be replaced by the giro system. Will it? If under the giro system amounts of less than 5s. cannot be transferred, it seems that we shall still have the postal order system which I recollect

the previous Postmaster-General referring to as something from the last century.
Perhaps the Minister of Technology ought to reply to this debate, because it was he who made the optimistic speech at that time. However, may we be told whether his indication that the postal order and money order system would be replaced no longer holds good? After looking into it, have the Government decided that it cannot be done? If so, this would be a considerable change.
10.15 p.m.
In his reply to me, the Postmaster-General said that there were two reasons for the minimum transfer of 5s. mentioned in the explanatory booklet. The first was economic, but that does not tie up with what was previously said about the calculated good return possible with what I regard as a rather small number of account holders. Second, the right hon. Gentleman said that there had been no indication yet of a demand for transferring smaller amounts. There are a good many people who have never heard of the giro system. I go so far as to say that there are many hon. and right hon. Members who, though they may have heard of it, have yet to discover what it is. Yet we are to have the system in this country in one and a half years time if the right hon. Gentleman carries his proposals through.
He cannot say that there will not be a demand just because he has not received many demands at this stage. I ask him to look at the systems operated abroad, see what amounts under the equivalent of 5s. are transferred in those systems, and then consider what is likely to be the situation in this country. Not enough people yet know about the system or what the position will be to write to him or tell him exactly how they want it to be run. It is our job in the House to look ahead and to advise the Government in order to produce the best possible service for the country in a system which is as yet unknown to it.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a brief answer on whether the 5s. limit is to be a limit imposed on all transactions under the giro system. If he says that it has not yet been decided, I shall be pleased, because I want him to look at it further.


The right hon. Gentleman knows that I welcome the prospect of a certain amount of competition which the new system will cause for the banks in a certain area. There will now be a choice for those people who might be considering opening a bank account. I believe that this is welcome and will give rise to a certain amount of healthy competition. Nevertheless, it would be quite wrong if the Government did anything to antagonise the banks. The banking system and the giro system should work together and be linked. Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure, in formulating the new scheme, that it is possible for the giro system and the banking system to work together by transfers between them so that transactions can be carried out as easily and as simply as possible? I hope that he will tell us something about that also tonight.

Mr. David Winnick: There have been several complaints from hon. Members opposite about Post Office services but I can tell the House that, on the whole, the service in Croydon is extremely good. In the 10 or 11 months during which I have been the Member for Croydon, South, I have, on the whole, received very few complaints of the kind one sometimes hears about delays in Post Office services and the rest. In my view, the service in Croydon is extremely good, and I think that I shall be supported in that by my two colleagues, the hon. Members for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill) and for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Frederic Harris) who sit on the benches opposite.
A week or so ago I visited the new head post office in Croydon. I believe that, when it is completely open, it will improve even the present efficiency of Post Office service in the borough. In Croydon, also, we are starting an experiment with the postal code. It has been said by the Post Office that this will improve the delivery system for letters and will create greater efficiency. Although there was a certain amount of controversy when the postal coding started, most people in Croydon now, I believe—certainly most people in my constituency—accept the code. I understand that the Postmaster-General may be able to tell us that, if the experiment

works well in Croydon, it will be copied in other places.
I have, however, received one type of complaint which I have brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General concerning the minimum charges for public telephones. There has been a certain amount of criticism, perhaps justified, that there will no longer be the 3d. call and the minimum charge will be 6d. I know that people will have a greater amount of time for their 6d., but that does not alter the fact that there was a certain amount of concern that people will not be able to have the 3d. minimum. Perhaps that matter can be examined.
My final point concerns the allegations which have appeared in newspapers in the past few days about possible delay in overseas cables. We are told in some of the newspapers that the information in the cables is being passed on to the security authorities, and one reads that that custom has been going on for about 40 years. Some of us may be forgiven if we were not aware of the custom.
I wonder whether the Postmaster-General wants to make a statement tonight. Perhaps we can be told whether there has been any new departure in that ruling. It is no secret in the House that all kinds of security probes take place in this country, as in all countries, but it was rather unfortunate to read about that matter in the newspapers in the past few days. Perhaps there was an element of exaggeration, but if my right hon. Friend wants to make a statement on the position tonight I am sure that the whole House will be interested.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: My particular concern is to know how much of the huge sum of money it is now proposed to borrow will be expended in Wales. There is plenty of room to improve the Post Office service there. For example, our telephone service lags far behind that of England and many other countries. When I asked the Postmaster-General how many homes per thousand were connected with telephones in Wales and in England, his answer was that the current estimates of residential telephone connections per thousand households is 256 in English post office regions, but only 150 in Wales and the border counties.


A difference of that magnitude is very hard to explain away, and it shows that there is plenty of room for development in Wales. I am afraid that too often Wales is for the Post Office just a rather unimportant part of the periphery of England, part of the fringe, and it is not a country, it is not a national entity, and for some purposes, such as publishing a directory, it is not even a region. We have not got one directory for Wales, and there should be one. Even then it would he only a small fraction of the size of the London directory. In that directory we should find the Welsh language as well as the English language. It seems from certain demands that have been made from the Post Office that it has nothing but contempt for the Welsh language.
I want to draw the attention of the Post Office to the national awakening in Wales, part of which is the rediscovery of the value of our national heritage. The most important part of that is the national language, and a movement is gathering momentum in Wales towards the creation of a bilingual community there, a community in which there will be parity of status between the Welsh and English languages. What is the Post Office doing in response to that?
There are Departments of Government which are responding sympathetically, and which are now making considerably more use of the Welsh language. The Department of Education and Science, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and even the courts are increasingly using the Welsh language, but that is visible Welsh. The most recalcitrant Department of Government in this matter is the Post Office. It seems to be rigidly if not fiercely anti-Welsh in this respect, although it so happens that Post Office buildings and property display more language than any other Department.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: If the Welsh language were used extensively for some technical terms and used extensively in addressing letters in Wales, the only result would be that the great mass of the population would not be able to follow the technicalities and that far more letters would be lost than at present.

Mr. Evans: I am not asking that technical jargon be placed on envelopes. I am asking only that the Welsh language be used simply and clearly in this way and in other ways which involve the Post Office. I am tempted to reply to the hon. Gentleman in Welsh but I should be ruled out of order if I did. But it is true to say that the Post Office shows no sympathy in this matter although it happens that it has more display space than any other Government Department.

Miss J. M. Quennell: What would happen to my name if I went to live in Wales? Supposing my name appeared in a Welsh telephone directory, what would it be?

Mr. Evans: Place names should be used in their correct Welsh form. I do not ask for Welsh as the sole language. If, however, there is a corrupt English form of a Welsh name, as there often is, the proper form should be used. If the hon. Lady's name is corrupt in one sense, that form should be used as well as the Welsh form. I am afraid that she has not raised a serious point.

Mr. Dobson: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the Post Office would have to train to understand Welsh the staff of sorting offices and every delivery postman in the Principality?

Mr. Evans: That would be very desirable but it would be unnecessary. This is a simple point. I do not mean that the Welsh language should be solely used. We are a bilingual community and the Welsh language should be given parity of status. It should cause no confusion in sorting offices or any other office.
I can illustrate the sort of position which has arisen. My local postmaster has for some years had in his possession as a loyal and patriotic Welshman a board on which are painted, in large letters, Llythyrdy Llangadog. I hope I am in order if I translate. It means Llangadog post office. Llangadog is the name of the village. But he is forbidden to put the board outside his post office although this is a Welsh-speaking village where everyone speaks Welsh and the children are educated in Welsh. The Postmaster-General will not let him put the board up, just as he will not allow


similar boards to be put up in other Welsh speaking villages. How can one seriously defend that kind of arrogance?
Who can defend a situation in which a Welshman may not put up words in Welsh outside his business premises if those premises happen to be a post office? I do not know if the House would think it fair if I said that it could be regarded as being typical of the arrogance of the English towards a subject people. I asked the Postmaster-General if he would use the Welsh language on some buildings belonging to the Post Office, and its vehicles. His response was depressingly. if not oppressively, negative.
10.30 p.m.
He said that there was no need to do this, because people in Wales understood English. This is typical of the attitude of a Government who show themselves in this, as in so many other ways, to be totally unsuited to be the Government of Wales. They show a lack of sympathy and entity which disqualifies them from the task of governing this small nation.
Of course people in Wales understand English; there are 750,000 bilingual Welshmen, and the English would be very fortunate if out of their scores of millions they had the same number who were bilingual. The Welsh people have that ability and the point is that the Welsh language is our national language.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order. Is not the hon. Gentleman straying away from the Amendment?

The Chairman: I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentlemen's observations, and I was just about to point out that we cannot, on this Amendment, discuss the Welsh language to that extent. I think that the hon. Member has made his point with reference to the Post Office.

Mr. Evans: I am trying to make the point that some of this £2 million should be expended in this way.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but I must take up this point of the Llythyrdy Llanddarog. If this were to be the only sign outside the Post Office, the great mass of people who use it, English tourists, because I know the place well, sending their postcards away from there,

would not know what the building was there for. The words "Post Office", on the other hand, are understandable to the English visitor and to other sections of the population.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) the "shadow Minister", the "little Sir Echo", is talking absolute nonsense. All of his friends who go abroad to Europe manage to send their postcards home.

Mr. Evans: The House appreciates the feeling that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire, South has for poor benighted English tourists in Wales, but he is confusing two places. The place I referred to is 50 miles away from Llanddarog—it is my village of Llangadog.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Was not the hon. Member trying to tackle the Postmaster-General on the issue, that there should be a Welsh notice board and an English notice board side by side? He was not suggesting that it should be in the Welsh language only.

Mr. Evans: That is my contention. If people think that the notice board should be in Welsh it should be so. What right has this House to decide what we do? It is our country and we ought to be able to run it in our own way. If we want to put notice boards up in Welsh that is our business.
This is a situation which will be found in many parts of Wales and it shows a lack of sympathy for a great national tradition. Our language should have the dignity and status due to any great national language. The Post Office in Switzerland or Yugoslavia does not show this kind of intolerance towards minorities. Romansh is spoken by only about 40,000 people in Switzerland, but it has rights equal to those of other languages spoken in that country, and the Welsh language should have the same kind of status as these other languages have in their countries.
Post Office buildings, vehicles, and pillar boxes are the most commonly seen of all publicly-owned properties. Many people see them every day of their lives. In Wales these should carry signs in the Welsh language, as well as the English language of course. Stamps used in


Wales should carry the Welsh language, and the Postmaster-General should take care to refrain from printing on stamps in Wales a phrase which is totally inaccurate, such as Wales and Monmouthshire, which seems to imply that Monmouthshire is not part of Wales.
We should have special issues of stamps. For instance, this year we are celebrating the 400th anniversary of the translation of the New Testament into Welsh. This is a great thing, and the translation of the Bible into the Welsh language saved the Welsh language. Surely we could have had a stamp to commemorate that great occasion, but the right hon. Gentleman has refused to do even as little as that to meet our demands.
With regard to the franking of letters, I have asked the Postmaster-General to agree to the franking of letters in places which have two forms of name, a correct Welsh form and a different English or corrupt English form, with both forms, but he has refused. The right hon. Gentleman has no sympathy with these things.
I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to publish licence and other forms put out by the Post Office in both languages, but again he has refused. We do not ask these things of the Postmaster-General or of the Government as a condescending favour. We ask for these things as a matter of right. We are entitled to them. The Government here are the Government of Wales, unfortunately. They are responsible for the government of more than one nation. They are responsible for the government of the nation of Wales. They have a duty to succour the life of Wales, the language of Wales, the traditions of Wales, and the Post Office is doing none of these things. The right hon. Gentleman should not be deflected from his duty by the old imperial tradition which so often leads the Government to treat other national traditions with contempt.

Sir D. Glover: I have a lot of sympathy for a good deal of what the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) said in his interesting speech. For the life of me I cannot see why the Post Office in Wales cannot put up a sign in the Welsh language if the people in that part of the world want it.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: In many Welsh areas the names are in both Welsh and English. As far as I understand the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), he wants them in Welsh only.

Sir D. Glover: With respect, I do not think that is what the hon. Member for Carmarthen said. He emphasised more than once that he would not mind in the slightest if it was in both languages.
I think that the hon. Gentleman carried his case too far. He thinks that there is a great dictatorial machine working against him. I am certain that if he saw the Postmaster-General about many of the matters which he raised the right hon. Gentleman would be able to meet him half way on a good deal of his objections. I do not suppose for a moment that the Postmaster-General has the faintest idea what the sign is outside the post office referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
On the other hand, I think that the hon. Gentleman has raised a very good point. There is no doubt that many more tourists would go to Wales if they thought it was a foreign country. They will not go to Wales while they think it is part of the United Kingdom, because everyone wants to go abroad for their holidays, and therefore the hon. Gentleman is probably on a very good wicket with this idea. But he went a little too far at the end of his speech.
The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary fought an enjoyable campaign against me in 1959 and I am glad to see that he has gained preferment so early in his career. Perhaps it was because the last time he spoke he attacked the Post Office bitterly. Perhaps he was given this position under the impression that it would keep him quiet, but he has shown today how wrong that impression was——

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): In fairness to my hon. Friend, I ought to point out that he is standing in for his hon. Friend, who is in Wales on a very important enterprise.

Sir D. Glover: Now we know: he is in Wales altering the notices outside the post offices. I withdraw what I said; at least, the hon. Member is doing a very good job, although he is not as silent as an official person would be.


I am not hostile to the Post Office. In many ways, it does a good job, but there is criticism of postal deliveries—and not just from London to the North. I have many complaints—the right hon. Gentleman has a considerable file on them—about deliveries from Yorkshire to Lancashire across the Pennines and elsewhere. He should keep a vigilant eye on this, because the deliveries are not improving.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) and I agreed that closing post offices in the lunch time is causing hardship. He said that it was a question of saving manpower and increasing efficiency. I have had a great deal of experience of distribution and know that if the Post Office were run on an O and M basis, post offices would be open half an hour a day and save a fortune, but the service which the public have a right to expect would not be much good. A case can be made for closing at lunch time and at 5.30, but it increases hardship.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), particularly about lunch time closing. Whether the right hon. Gentleman realises it or not, there is still a good deal of spontaneous buying, even in the Post Office. A person who thinks at lunch time of writing to his Aunt Jemima also thinks of buying a stamp, but cannot do so because the post office is closed. The Post Office's turnover goes down if the offices are not open. This means that such purchases are not just delayed but never take place——

Mr. Dobson: Is it not possible that a person might write a letter and then buy the stamp?

Sir D. Glover: I accept that that happens sometimes, but a saving of 16s. 2½d. is not worth the drop in turnover and inconvenience to the public caused by lunch time closing.
A matter which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will get on to—and about which I will be writing to him—is the question of recorded deliveries. I know of a very disturbing case in my constituency. One of my constituents was fined by a court and sent off the fine the next day by recorded delivery. Two months later, a policeman came up his garden path with a warrant for his arrest

for non-payment of the fine. [Laughter.] The hon. Member may laugh, but I am sure that no hon. Member would like a policeman to call on him. British people reckon that this lowers their status in the community; everyone says, "I wonder what he has been up to"—they have always been a bit suspicious that he would get into trouble before long, and now it has happened. This is the attitude people take when they see a policeman going up to the door.
10.45 p.m.
This constituent of mine went to the Post Office to find out what had happened to his recorded delivery and—this is the bitterest pill of all—the Post Office then said "for sixpence we will make a search." I want the right hon. Gentleman to look into this. I am really serious about it. When one goes along and gets a recorded delivery from the Post Office, and the Post Office fails to carry out its obligations and does not deliver the letter and one finds out that the letter has not been delivered and goes to the Post Office to find out what has happened, the Post Office then has the nerve to demand sixpence to make a search.
The Post Office ought to give the person half a crown for having to go to the Post Office. I hope that this is not the general system——

Mr. Robert Cooke: Could my hon. Friend make it clear how long this process took? I am getting very worried, because I sent off a fine quite recently to a court by recorded delivery. Could my hon. Friend tell me when the policeman is going to arrive?

Sir D. Glover: I do not know whether I am in a position in this debate to advise my hon. Friend, but in my constituent's case it was about two months later. Therefore, if it is not about two months in my hon. Friend's case he had better check with the Post Office that the letter has been delivered, but he will have to pay sixpence.
This case I have mentioned must have lost the Post Office an enormous amount of goodwill, not only with my constituent and his family but also with all his acquaintances. What in the world is the use of a recorded delivery system if there is no record of the letter after the Post Office receives it?


I ask the right hon. Gentleman—and I will send him all the particulars—to look into this. I do not want it looked into only from the isolated point of view of my constituent, but generally so as to make quite certain that this cannot happen to anybody else, and that when one has sent a letter by recorded delivery one does not get the Post Office charging for proving that the letter has not yet been delivered.
I was about to bring my remarks to a close, but there is one further point I should like to raise with the right hon. Gentleman, and again I am trying to be helpful. The Post Office have for years lost on their parcel traffic, and I believe the reason they lose on this traffic is that there is no advantage for the bulk people —and I do not mean Littlewoods but people much smaller than that, the semi-bulk people—to send their goods by Post Office parcel delivery. The reason is that they pay the same price as I would if I took one parcel and put it over the counter.
Let me take as an example the field in which I spent my life—the clothing industry. Buyers go into warehouses, they go into small factories in the East End of London and all over the country, and perhaps their initial purchase is only one box, but that firm is sending off perhaps 100 boxes that night. Why cannot they weigh the whole lot in bulk and pay the Post Office for 100 lb. or 500 lb. or whatever it is, at a lower rate, and do their own stamping, so that all that has to be done when they take their goods to the Post Office is to check by pulling out one parcel and weighing it? This would cut down an enormous amount of the cost of administration. In my experience, most of those firms have greater confidence in the integrity of delivery of Post Office parcels than they have in the efficiency of British Railways, and they would not require a great deal of persuasion to put an enormous amount of traffic in the way of the Post Office. If the right hon. Gentleman went into the matter, I am sure he could find some way of reducing the losses on the parcel service.
I hope, as a result of that, that the Post Office will make more profit, and that we in the Tory Party will be able to have the benefit of it.

Mr. John Wells: When we began this debate a week ago, the Postmaster-General has been castigating the television manufacturers for what he described as their sloth, because they had not brought down the price of colour television sets when they had a great new market open to them.
The Post Office itself has had a vast increase in its market in the past few years. Its turnover has gone up, and its custom in all sections has tended to increase. In spite of that, the Postmaster-General has put up prices very steeply, in clear opposition to the Government's present policy. On top of the increased charges, he now comes to the House for these additional borrowing powers.
However, I do not wish to attack the right hon. Gentleman about the increased charges. Instead, I wish to ask him one or two specific questions, and I should be grateful if he could either answer them later this evening or let me have replies in writing before too long.
We have been told that the Post Office proposes to introduce preferred sizes of stationery in the near future, and I wonder what steps of compensation, if any, will be offered to those firms which manufacture non-Post Office preferred sizes—or will they have to conform, willy-nilly?

Mr. Edward Short: They will have two years' warning.

Mr. Wells: There will be two years' warning, and then they will have to conform—[Interruption.] It is to the benefit of the Post Office, and no one else. Perhaps the Postmaster-General will answer from a standing position in due course.
My second point has to do with the deplorable old telephone equipment in certain growing towns in and around the London area, such as my constituency of Maidstone. There are still manual telephone exchanges in villages not far from Maidstone, including a very antiquated system in the village where the Patronage Secretary lives. It is unfortunate to see him present. I cannot imagine why he is here.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) made a valid point in the earlier part of the debate


about the lack of telephone kiosks in certain parts of his constituency, which could prove serious in emergencies. In addition to the hon. Gentleman's specific point relating to his constituency, I want to ask the Postmaster-General about the emergency telephone facilities provided on new stretches of motorway, which are lamentably lacking. I hope that he will look into that.
The extra telephone connection charge is another matter which is causing concern. Many people move house and want to move their telephones with them, but find that they are expected to pay a year's rental in advance. I have seen the circular letter sent out from the right hon. Gentleman's Department in which the Post Office has the neck to liken this to a hire-purchase rental. This is rubbish. A subscriber has a telephone. He moves house. He is then told that he is likened to a hire-purchase renter. I have never heard a more rubbishy Ministerial reply. If this nonsense is to continue, I hope that the Minister will send out a more courteous circular in future. Better than that, the extra rental demand should be reduced.
We have heard in the last few days, as an outcome, perhaps, of the great Russian non-event, that there is to be a new "hot" line to Moscow. This is to cost a very large sum of money to maintain. Will that large sum come out of the moneys covered by this borrowing power? If so, will the line be available to ordinary businessmen? If it must be tested every half-hour, will businessmen be able to teleprint to Moscow when the Prime Minister is not having a cosy chat? If the right hon. Gentleman wants to have a cosy chat, he can interrupt the businessman on the line. It would be absurd to pay out this very large sum of money unless the line is to be put to some ordinary commercial or even diplomatic use.
We are told in paragraph 7 of the White Paper on a Post Office Giro, Command 2751, that the giro system is to be complementary to the clearing banks. Will the giro system be prepared to clear cheques for small but reputable banks which are not in the clearing house? A half-century ago, there was great competition among the bigger banks, apart from the "Big Five", which were not in the clearing house, to buy up old banks

which happened to be in the clearing house.
We are told in the same White Paper that the giro will be equivalent to a banking system without an overdraft. This is all very well, but clearance is to be on the 24-hour basis. What is to stop a rogue getting in a Bentley or even a speeded-up Mini and driving round to large post offices and defrauding the public? May we be told how fraud is to be stopped?
Paragraph 13 deals with fees and charges. For payments on demand to account holders the fee will be 9d. That compares favourably with the cost of clearing a cheque. For payments other than to an account holder, it will be 9d. up to £50 and 2s. over £50. If the Postmaster-General owes me £51 and sends me a transfer through his own system, will I be docked 2s. because he likes to pay me in that way, or will he be expected to send me a ticket or whatever it is for £51 2s. to cover my expenses? Will people who get payments have their 2s. added or will the 2s. be deducted from the account of the giro account holder?

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I had not intended to take part in the debate, but I have been provoked or stimulated to do so by the contribution of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans). With a great deal of what he said I agree, though I dissociate myself from the extreme way in which he put some of his points. I should have thought that, at the least, the English had some complaints against the Welsh; for it was the Tudors who were an entirely Welsh family that largely caused the situation of which the hon. Gentleman complains, by their excessive centralisation.
What surprised me was the reaction of the House to the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. Not only the Government but the Opposition, too, have in debates in the House accepted the principle of the equal validity of the Welsh language in Wales. There has never been any doubt about it. There was not even a Division when the principle was stated and accepted. It is only fair to say that I receive forms from the Ministry of Agriculture and local authorities and other Ministries that are bilingual. The Post


Office is in some danger of falling behind, of allowing an aggravating sore to run, which really is entirely unnecessary.
11.0 p.m.
I suggest that the Postmaster-General investigates with the Canadian High Commissioner the bilingual forms that apparently are readily available in all the post offices of Quebec or Ontario or the Atlantic Provinces of Canada. Similarly, such bilingual forms are available in the post offices of Switzerland and many other countries. The cost of the additional printing on exactly the same size of form is relatively very small.
If the hon. Member is right in saying that there is a village post office in his part of the world where the postmaster has drawn up a sign saying "Llythyrdy Llangadog" and is not allowed to put it up, that is a disgraceful and stupid state of affairs. If I know the Postmaster-General aright, he would entirely agree with that description of whatever form of bureaucracy prevents this sign being put up.
The principle of equal validity is accepted simply to create the atmosphere —in which the Government as well as the Conservative Opposition and my own party are concerned—to preserve and nurture the Welsh language. That is the avowed policy of the Government and that should be the purpose of accepting the principle of equal validity within the Post Office and other Government services. The Post Office could go at a little faster rate than it has, so far in this respect, and a more co-operative attitude is needed in some areas. I am sure that if he is really apprised of the situation the Postmaster-General will stimulate a little more action in the Principality on this matter.
I also have a word of praise for the Post Office in Wales. In my constituency a Post Office minibus service has recently been started, running from the town of Llanidloes, where I live, to the village of Llangurig five miles away, where incidentally the Postmaster is always known as "Jones y post" and not "Jones y Llythyrdy". This service is an interesting experiment for Wales and other areas where it has been found that it does not pay commercial bus companies to run buses. But it is important that

there should be adequate communications between the villages and towns. I hope that the Postmaster-General will take care that the buses run at times convenient for the villagers. They must also be convenient for the Post Office, but a considerable degree of co-operation is necessary. If the experiment is a success it may presage the solution of the great problems of communications in the rural areas.
Having given a word of praise to the Post Office, I now have a word of criticism. I think that in my part of Wales it sometimes tries to impose too much uniformity. Centralised sorting and so on may save labour and be more convenient. But in my own town Saturday is market day and traditionally the post office has always been open until 6 p.m. or 6.30. It is now closing considerably earlier, which sometimes causes inconvenience, particularly to country people and to tradesmen. Although statistics can show that at some times of the year the post office is not used a great deal in the later hours on Saturday, at other times it is used a good deal. Surely the purpose of the Post Office is to provide a service? I should like to see a little more latitude allowed to local postmasters in the matter, and hope that they be encouraged by the Postmaster-General not to try to impose a uniform system everywhere.

Miss Quennell: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) will forgive me if I do not pursue his very narrow geographical area of discussion, but I am quite fascinated by the mail bus which he mentioned. I cannot make out whether it carries post or is a bus for gentlemen only.
I think the Postmaster-General is a very lucky man. He is the first Departmental Minister to have his chance of having his request for further money scrutinised by the House since the publication of the Estimates last week. Those figures came as a shock to the whole country.
This Bill contains about £450 million, which is an awful lot of money for the House to vote a Department without very close scrutiny of what that Department proposes to do with the cash. When doing it, I am afraid, as every speaker has said, we are voting the money in an atmosphere of collapsing public confidence in the services the Post Office is


offering to the public. Every hon. Member has a file of complaints from constituents about the service they are getting, about lost letters, lost packages, or about telephones or some other aspect of communications which the Department controls.

Mr. Dobson: May I place on record that I have not got a file?

Miss Quennell: The hon. Member has not been in the House very long. When he has been here a bit longer, he will have. One complaint I have is from a constituent in business with a considerable export trade:
We are a business house and find it virtually impossible to make normal telephone calls. The comparatively newly installed dialling system gives practically no results and we are informed by an engineer (who has tried unsuccessfully to give us service) that there are not enough lines in this area to cope with the number of telephones. If we dial 100, 191 or 9191 we get no reply at all! This wastes endless time here and frankly, we consider that letters or an Olympic runner would be far more efficacious.
In that connection I quite agree. It has, in my experience, taken five days for letters to come to this House when posted to me in Petersfield town, some 57 miles away. At that progress, an Olympic runner would cover the distance a good deal more quickly.
I have endless complaints of lost correspondence, and having frequently taken up complaints of constituents, I have had from the Postmaster-General's predecessor over and over again letters containing his apologies and saying:
I am afraid I cannot explain what has happened to his letters".
This does not engender public confidence, whether he accepts this criticism or not. Letters posted quite adequately, which should have arrived within 24 hours quite a short distance away have arrived four or five days later, and on Post Office service, one letter I had from a constituent read:
Last week I had to queue for 12 minutes to hand in for a receipt a pre-stamped recorded delivery packet, and today, December 5th, I tacked on to the end of a queue at the outside door of the Post Office at 12.12 p.m. and eventually reached the counter at 12.24 p.m. to hand over and obtain a receipt for a similar pre-stamped recorded delivery packet.
That queue of people who wanted to get to that counter were having to queue out in the Market Square in December

for 12 minutes before they reached the counter. This is hardly the sort of service the public expects, considering the amount of money the Post Office requires, and the way charges have gone up so much. This rise in charges has over and over again compelled constituents to write to say, for example,
I would be very interested to know how this relates to the Government's prices and wages policy and why there has been no publicity attached to this move.
One can understand why there has been no publicity for it. The fact is that while the Government have pursued a policy of restraining private industry in every respect, too many Government Departments have gone on increasing their charges to the unfortunate British public, who are getting fed up with the service they are getting.
The unfortunate aspect of this is that the individual G.P.O. employee is doing his best and trying his hardest, and I am satisfied that local postmasters are doing —I think the phrase is— "their nut" to provide a good service to the public. The fault is neither theirs nor that of the individual employee. But, my goodness, they have difficulties to overcome, and I sometimes wonder why the Post Office uses such curious methods in distributing letters.
I live, for example, in a cottage on a rather remote, narrow, sharp and steep hilly lane in my constituency. One would have thought that a bicycle was the very last form of transport to use in this day and age for the unfortunate postman who delivers my letters and those for the village above me, yet there goes the poor man pedalling up the lane until he gets to the hill, when he has to get off and push. The Post Office could have taken a hint from the police and provided Vespa scooters at the very least. Surely, a small motorised vehicle of that kind would be a much more suitable method of transport for the postal services.
I conclude by quoting a letter from a constituent who has hit the nail on the head, because she writes:
The efficiency of our internal communications is of vital importance to our country's business and is a non-party issue. 'The breakdown occurs elsewhere' would seem to be the crux of the matter—a failure of co-operation between the various postal departments and, presumably, British Railways?


One frequently gets the impression that the failure occurs somewhere in the higher structure of the Post Office and not at the ground level, where the men are doing their best to make the service work. Therefore, if we are to give the Postmaster-General this large access to fresh funds, that same Postmaster-General must justify it to the House of Commons tonight.

Sir Ronald Russell: I wish to follow up one or two of the points I made on Second Reading. First, I should like to recall the comments of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) when he expressed the hope that the Postmaster-General would re-examine the question of the minimum price of 3d. for calls from telephone kiosks. I support that plea.
I have found, however, in going into some of the telephone boxes in my constituency, that a bar has already been placed across the 3d. slot and that coins can no longer be inserted in it. Instead of using a bar across the slot, thereby helping to make the 3d. piece of much less use as a coin, why could it not have been adapted to take two 3d. bits? Perhaps, however, this would be too costly an engineering process. I wish that the Postmaster-General would reconsider the abolition of the 3d. call. The doubling of the price from 3d. to 6d. for a minimum call is a monstrous increase, even if it does give double time, which a lot of people will not want.
I wish also to refer to a report, which appeared in the Press about a week ago when this debate began, that there might soon be an increase in telephone rentals. I hope that the Postmaster-General will be able to deny this and that there will be no increase in rentals for a long time, because there have been increases of a severe nature in other postal charges. I am sure that the business world, apart from residential subscribers, would take badly to any increase in telephone rentals at the present time.
11.15 p.m.
On Second Reading, I referred to several matters which the Assistant Postmaster-General has answered in three letters to me. But one point which has not been answered is that there is a great deal of bureaucracy in the acquiring of

premises for post offices. I do not mean new buildings, about which it is understandable that there should be a great deal of consultation. I am referring to the case, for example, where a postmaster wants to acquire a shop, perhaps for the Christmas rush or possibly even permanently.
I understand that a whole committee of the Ministry of Public Building and Works has to inspect the premises before a decision can be made. That results in some private enterprise buyer getting in first, with power to make a decision, and the Post Office finds itself shut out. Could not the Postmaster-General make representations to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works to get this procedure simplified? It is ridiculous that a person holding the position of postmaster of a considerable district—I cite this because my constituency is in the Harrow and Wembley district—should not be able to come to a decision within certain limits that he can spend money on such premises without having to refer it to a committee of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. That is a piece of bureaucracy handicapping the Post Office and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take up the matter.
It was stated in the Press last week that the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, which apparently is the world's largest telephone company, made a profit in 1966 of no less than £706 million, which is about 22,000 million dollars. How is it that an American private enterprise company can make a profit like that, whereas our Post Office cannot? This is something that should be looked into.
In the earlier debate, I mentioned a constituent's problem and the Assistant Postmaster-General has written to me about it. My constituent's telephone account for the second quarter of s.t.d. showed double the number of units compared with both the first quarter and the third quarter. The hon. Gentleman's letter was soothing but does not solve the problem. Apparently it is a custom that, when a change-over is made to s.t.d., the second quarter is rather greedy in terms of units charged. My constituent is not satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's reply and only hopes that at some


time in the future meter for his calls will go on strike, because that is the best way to get a reduction. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with some of the points which were not covered in the Assistant Postmaster-General's very courteous letters.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: It is difficult to resist the temptation to join in on this amiable occasion. Mindful of Oscar Wilde's view that the only way to rid oneself of temptation is to submit to it, I will contribute. The mysteries of our rules of procedure allow us to range rather widely on this subject—to Switzerland, to the motoring fine on the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) and other matters. Indeed, we appear to be allowed a degree of licence only equalled normally by Her Majesty's coroners. I shall endeavour to keep specifically to three matters on which I should be grateful for an answer.
The first relates to the giro, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). It concerns the minimum figure of 5s. The right hon. Gentleman has answered many of the other points we put to him in the previous debate in correspondence, for which I am most grateful, but I am not yet completely satisfied with the answer given about this minimum. If the answer is as it would appear to be, namely, that there is no real demand under the giro system for figures of less than 5s., then I would say that we should wait and see. If there are no technical difficulties, why not let us try to find out what is the demand? I am informed—I have no first-hand knowledge of this—that the other countries which have adopted the giro have also not adopted a minimum figure, speaking in the strictest sense. In one case I think the figure is 4d., and in another, ls. ld., and although I quote from memory, I do not think that I am far from the mark. It is possible to operate without a minimum in the sense that the amounts are so small as not really to constitute a minimum at all. Why not try it here and see if there is any demand?
I should like to refer briefly to telephone kiosks and vandalism. I am appreciative of the efforts which have been made to construct "indestructible" kiosks, and I sympathise with the diffi-

culties involved for those who are trying to do something, all the more because I recently suffered the experience of trying to make a call where every kiosk—and I hasten to say that it was not in my own constituency—had been destroyed. It prompted me to put this point once again, and I wondered if it would help if the Postmaster-General extended the system of having public telephones in shops or other premises so that they could be under supervision and not so likely to be subject to assault from time to time. I suggest that we could go some way in this direction by following the French pattern where telephones are more readily available in shops.
It has occurred to me that some of the vandalism is not vandalism for its own sake, but results from attempts to get at the money; and if the telephones were in shops, then we should have done away with part of the temptation.
My other point is about Post Office hours and facilities generally. Hon. Members seem to have been vying with one another about the size of their postbags on this topic. Hon. Members on this side appear to have large postbags of complaints, while those opposite boast of the smallness of theirs. It may be that I sit where I do, but my own would come about half way between those two, and the complaints which I receive are not so much of quality as of quantity—the lack of a post office, and so on. In my own constituency there has been extensive growth, an almost explosive population growth, and new areas have arisen without adequate Post Office facilities. I am aware that this is a problem in all growing areas, but often in such areas there is no corresponding growth in the postal services.

Sir D. Glover: Does the hon. Member also find that the Post Office is only too inclined to expand the one main office instead of building a couple of smaller ones elsewhere?

Dr. Winstanley: Yes, but I have not thought that the expansions have been all that noticeable. It may be that it is impossible to provide as many Post Offices as one would want, but I agree that possibly the temptation is to enlarge the central office rather than to build elsewhere. I think that there are other things which we could do. Of course,


the number of sub-post offices is another matter, and rather cautiously I raise the question of vending machines.
In my constituency it is quite possible to got to a post office to find that it has closed and to find that there is no vending machines outside. Before the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) pulls a face about this suggestion, I should be glad if he would listen to what I propose rather than judge it before I have spoken. I accept that it has been found necessary, for various reasons which have been given from time to time, to reduce hours. In these cases a substitute service can be provided up to a point by a machine with a wider range, and by a wider provision of such machines. I do not want to see vending machines as a substitute for post offices, and I am not advocating that, but an increasing use of vending machines can do much to militate against the difficulties of early closing. One may go to a post office and find that one is in time for the mail collection, but unfortunately not in time to buy a stamp. There are still sub-post offices which do not have vending machines outside, and one has to tour the district to find a post office which has vending machines.
I listened with interest to the arguments of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). He suggested that a powerful reason for keeping post offices open longer was that the Postmaster-General might lose revenue when people were unable to buy stamps and to make other purchases from post offices. I did not think that this was a very strong argument. What the Postmaster-General loses on the swings he undoubtedly gains on the roundabouts. When the Post Office is closed, people may make telephone calls, so that in the end the right hon. Gentleman gets even more revenue. But I agree with the point which the hon. Member for Ormskirk was trying to prove—that people are being put to certain difficulties. Without going into all the details of different ways in which it could be done, I am simply trying to draw the Postmaster-General's attention to the fact that more could be done to provide substitute services. I should like him to answer some of the brief points which I have put to him as possible methods of providing a substitute service.

Mr. Paul Bryan: We started this debate a week ago in a morning sitting. It was my first experience of a morning sitting and it was an eye opener. It had been suggested that the Opposition were out to kill morning sittings by devaluing them, but the picture that morning was a complete contradiction of that suggestion. The benches on the Opposition side were well populated with lively and keen speakers, but those on the Government side were sparsely populated.
The Postmaster-General attended early to make a statement and then arranged his morning in such a way that he could not attend again. I do not say that he was lazy and I do not accuse him of going off to read a James Bond novel. No doubt he had Press conferences and other matters to attend to. But he relegated it to a second-class sitting—although it was a sitting seeking authorisation for £450 million to be spent in his Department.
I spoke on Second Reading when the Postmaster-General gave a good deal of information. In the four or five hours of debate since, he has been asked for much more. I am not stopping the debate, but I should like to finish for the Opposition by stressing one question to which we should like a straight answer tonight. It is the question of higher telephone rentals. The Daily Telegraph reported,
Mr. Short, the Postmaster-General, is considering raising the £14 annual rental for telephones. So far no proposal has been put to the Cabinet, which might not agree to an increase during the present period of price restraint. Post office telecommunications as a whole made a profit of nearly £40 million last year but the present telephone rental of about 5s. 6d. a week does not cover replacements etc…".
First, is this true? Secondly, true or not, how did it get into the papers? It is not just one paper, for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) quoted a similar story from the Daily Express.
11.30 p.m.
May we hear from the Postmaster-General whether or not this is true? Secondly, why was it in the papers first? If it is true, why was it not announced through the House? We on this side of the House are somewhat touchy on this subject, after our experience of 20th July when £20 million or more in extra Post


Office charges were slipped into the Exchequer by budgetary means. We do not want this to happen again. If charges are to go up—we hope that they are not—but if they are, we do not want to see them in the Budget for the first time; we want them brought down to the House and discussed in a proper way.
Secondly we suspect that the Post Office has tried, and tries, to insulate itself from the squeeze. If we are to have rises in any part of the service, we want to know what will compensate for them. Undoubtedly charges are, to a certain extent, unbalanced. On the one side, kiosks and telegrams and local calls lose money, but trunk calls make a profit, and there might be a case for balancing out. But if anything goes up we should certainly know what will come down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) made an interesting comment on the 8 per cent. profit which the Post Office is meant to make. It was in the days of a Conservative Government that the criterion was settled, but I do not think that any of us know how it was arrived at. If we are to have a much longer period of freeze it makes one wonder whether 8 per cent. is the right figure. It might be said that, if we do not pay that amount, capital will run down, but this is exactly what is happening to private industry. There is a lesser investment in private enterprise, going down to perhaps 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. next year. Although it is desirable to make these profits, we cannot take it for granted that the Post Office will be able to insulate itself from what the whole of industry is suffering.
In a way the Post Office is in a strong position since it has a complete monopoly, and it can make what it wants, whereas industry has to make money in order to attract capital.

Mr. Edward Short: We have had a very good debate which has lasted for something like four hours, and I am grateful to hon. Members for the constructive speeches that they have made. I should like to reply to a number of points put to me, and then to make one or two general observations.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) received a great deal of Press publicity, but I fear that the facts will not receive so much. The hon.

Gentleman complained of a delay of 10 days in getting his phone put right. The records, which I scrutinised, show that he reported a fault on Monday, 16th January. It was immediately investigated, and the fault was found to be in the outside cable. It was cleared the same day. There proved to be another fault, traced to the wiring inside the house, but the engineers could not get into the house.
When they did get in, on Thursday, 19th January they restored the service at once and finally cleared the fault the following day by renewing part of the lead-in of the outside cable, in a new grey cable. In other words the service was restored in three days after the fault was reported, not 10 days, and the fault was completely cleared in four days. Those are the facts.

Mr. Graham Page: This is wholly untrue. It was my telephone, I used it, and I know that it was off for that period.

Mr. Short: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is completely untrue. I have given the facts. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Completely untrue. I have scrutinised this, and given the facts.

Mr. Page: The right hon. Gentleman is accusing me of telling an untruth. He is taking his information from some records which he has seen. I am taking my information from my personal knowledge of my own telephone and ringing my own telephone. Whether or not the telephone was joined up again after it was repaired I do not know. Probably it was not.

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman said that his telephone was out of use for 10 days.

Mr. Page: It was.

Mr. Short: It was out of use for three days. Those are the facts.

Mr. Page: Those are not the facts.

Mr. Short: Those are the facts. The hon. Gentleman is accusing me of telling an untruth.

Mr. Page: Withdraw.

Mr. Short: I withdraw nothing. I have nothing to withdraw. The hon. Gentleman is the one who ought to withd raw.

Mr. Page: Whose telephone was it?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) talked about Cumbernauld new town.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. I am sorry to create dissension in this debate, but when an hon. Member speaks from his own experience—and the Minister can only be speaking from advice given to him—I think he has a right to have his word taken.

Mr. Short: I have checked, and counter-checked it. If the hon. Gentleman cares to withdraw, he can do so. I have nothing to withdraw. I have given the facts to the House. As the responsible Minister I have given the facts to the House.
As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East raised the question of Cumbernauld. It is true that there is a great labour shortage there. This is one of the difficulties. An interesting thing about the new town is that we are costing the distribution network system, and we hope to carry out a full trial in a new town in the near future. But costing is being done there, and we hope to complete this during the next few weeks.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) raised a number of very interesting points and made what I believe was one of the most valuable suggestions in the whole debate. I shall look into the question immediately of some reduction for the bulk supply of parcels. I think that this is a most useful suggestion. If the hon. Gentleman will send me particulars of the recorded delivery one, I shall look into that.
With regard to early closing, I realise that this is making difficulties in some places. It is purely a question of saving money and making the job in the Post Office for the post and telegraph officers more attractive. These are the reasons for it.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) raised the question of the Welsh language. I realise that this is a very evocative theme, but he can tell his postmaster that he can put his sign up in Welsh. I have no objection to this, provided that he also puts it up in English.
With regard to using the Welsh language, the two factors here are again costs—I have to run a big business and make it pay—and simplicity. These are the reasons why we do not use the Welsh language more widely. We try to provide a Welsh speaking employee at each counter in Welsh speaking areas. This is not always possible, but we try to do it as far as we can.
With regard to the finances of the Welsh region of the Post Office, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it is heavily subsidised by the English regions, as is the Scottish region.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) raised the question of the Post Office preferred envelopes. I should have thought that giving two years' notice was adequate for any manufacturer to adopt his machinery to the new sizes.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of kiosks in country areas. This is a great problem, and we lose money on these. We do the best we can, but we have to hold the balance between the Post Office as a public service running unremunerative services—of which we do a fair amount, I think more than we ought to do—and the Post Office as a business. We try to hold a fair balance, but it is a problem.
We are developing a new kind of telephone which can be placed on a counter in a shop. I hope that this will be sold hard in the near future when it really comes into production. It can make a great contribution to the provision of telephones in villages, and elsewhere, too. A shopkeeper can make quite a lot of money out of it, provided it is used. It is a small thing which stands on the counter.
With regard to the "hot line" to Moscow——

Mr. John Wells: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider my specific point about kiosks on motorways?

Mr. Short: Certainly: I forgot to mention that.
The "hot line" to Moscow is paid for in exactly the same way as any other Government line. The appropriate Department pays the Post Office for the service which we give it.


On the giro, it is the payer who pays the fee——

Mr. John Wells: My other two points related to the giro's complementing the banks—whether it clears cheques and the question of overdrafts.

Mr. Short: Co-operation depends on achieving compatibility between the two systems. I cannot say, offhand, whether it could be achieved with every bank, but, as we say in the booklet, we hope for a high degree of co-operation.
On security, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to give details of the proposed precautions against fraud in the giro system, but we are mindful of the need for adequate safeguards, which are being arranged. On payment, if a giro account holder makes a payment to someone who is not an account holder, it is the payer who will pay.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that the minibus service is an important experiment. We are hoping to start another in Devon or Cornwall in the near future and another four a short time after. The difficulty is that we must select a route on which no public service buses run and where postal requirements coincide with the time that people want to travel. We are finding great difficulty in finding a suitable experimental route in Cornwall, but we have worked on it this week and hope to have six experiments going in the near future. This is an important development, which may make a great contribution to rural transport.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell), raised the question of the time taken in acquiring buildings. He has raised this before and we are doing what we can to deal with it.
Vandalism, mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), is very worrying and is worse in some areas than in others. We have introduced a number of devices which are making an impact on this and there has been a great improvement, for example in Birmingham. We hope that our new kiosk design will greatly reduce vandalism. When the new table phone which I mentioned comes into use, vandalism will

not be possible because it will be in a shop.

Sir D. Glover: I have a suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman might appreciate. Have Post Office engineers considered whether someone wanting to make a local call could enter the box by inserting his coin outside rather than inside?

Mr. Short: This is one of many ideas which are being considered. It is very worrying and it is difficult to know just how to deal with it. We get a good deal of co-operation from the public, although we could do with more. We have installed a number of devices in the worst areas.
The main question in Post Office facilities is to holding the balance between the unremunerative services which we run as a public service and running the Post Office as a business. We are faced with this conflict all the time, of course.
There has been some misunderstanding about the scope of the Bill. The Post Office Borrowing Powers Act, 1964, authorised the Postmaster-General to borrow up to a limit of £1,320 million, subject to a Resolution, which was taken on 4th March last year. About £1,200 million has already been borrowed and I expect the limit to be reached this summer. The present Bill proposes that the amounts already authorised should be increased to provide for needs up to 1971.
11.45 p.m.
I have been reminded by hon. Members that it is the Government's intention that the Post Office should become a public Corporation. This is true. It is a vast and complicated operation which has never been done before, and I shall be presenting a White Paper to the House before Easter, and the Bill before Christmas. I really cannot tell the House now that there is no need to look more than two years ahead because Parliament will by then have passed legislation that it has not yet seen.
If the change is approved in due course, the provisions in the present Bill will be superseded by whatever arrangements are made in connection with the establishment of the Corporation. Meantime, the Bill follows common form in looking four years ahead.


The Bill amends Section 10(2) of the Post Office Act, 1961, which limits the amounts which the Postmaster-General may borrow. But Section 9 of that Act limits the purposes to which the money may be put to meeting any expenditure which is properly chargeable to capital account and for working capital.

Sir Eric Errington: One is very much concerned about the Post Office understanding the developments that take place in the areas where there is a considerable explosion in population. Will the effect of this money being made available have some speeding-up effect in those areas where there are a large number of people who are unable to get telephonic help?

Mr. Short: Certainly—of course. And this is where the black spots are, in telecommunications in towns like Croydon where there has been tremendous growth.
Last week hon. Gentlemen asked me whether any of the money to be borrowed would be made available to the B.B.C. for the purposes of colour television, how much of it would be spent on the development of local radio, and how much would be contributed to the work of various international organisations. The answer is none. Expenditure on these matters is not chargeable to the capital account of the Post Office. The money I am asking for is intended for the commercial business of the Post Office, that is posts, telecommunications and remittances. The Post Office is not in the broadcasting business, and there is no intention that it should be. I do not own a broadcasting station, and I have no intention of owning one. As the Committee knows there are many Post Office radio stations up and down the country, some communicating with foreign countries and some with ships at sea, but none of them broadcasts programmes for reception by the general public. This is not Post Office business at all.
I was also asked whether the cost of the giro would mean that it would not be running profitably. The White Paper on giro which my right hon. Friend, my predecessor, presented in August, 1965, made it clear that we expected the giro to yield an acceptable return on capital.

The widespread interest already being shown in the service confirms us in this expectation.
With regard to the 5s. minimum which a number of hon. Gentlemen have mentioned, my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General dealt with this on the Second Reading of the Bill, in column 889. The simple point is that market research has shown that there is no real demand for anything less than the 5s. minimum. But the book makes it clear that these are the conditions we intend to have when we start. When the postal order system finally fades out we may have to look at this again. In the meantime, I think postal orders are adequate for any amounts less than 5s.
Hon. Members asked last week about the return which the Post Office gets on its capital. The information is readily available. It is given every year in the Post Office's Annual Report and Accounts. The return on net assets—and if hon. Members want a definition of "return" they will find it set out quite clearly in the White Paper on Post Office Prospects 1966–67, published in March, 1966—in 1963–64 was 7·8 per cent.; in 1964–65 it was 6·9 per cent.; in 1965–66, 8·1 per cent. Separate figures are available for posts and telecommunications and they are to be found in the accounts. This year, we expect the return to be a little under 8 per cent.
The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) pointed out quite rightly that our target is an average return of 8 per cent. over the five years of which I have quoted the first three. He said that that was a low figure compared with what private enterprise would expect to achieve, and he is quite right. It is a low figure. His own Government fixed the figure in the knowledge that the Post Office has many duties which would not be acceptable to an enterprise which had no motive but profit. As I have pointed out, we undertake very many unremunerative services. There are telephone kiosks all over the country which do not pay. Many post offices do not pay. The parcel post does not pay, and we lose an enormous amount on telegrams. There are many unremunerative services, especially in rural areas. That factor is taken into account in fixing the financial target of the Post Office.
A good deal of play was made last week and again tonight about increased charges. I was accused of introducing the increased charged surreptitiously. The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) did not use that word, but something rather like it tonight. They were announced on 20th July last by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. They were given a good deal of publicity, both then and since. As my right hon. Friend said on 20th July, they were expected to yield £20 million in a full year. Of that, £13 million comes from the inland postal services, and £7 million from the overseas postal service.
The changes in telecommunications charges do not figure in that at all, because the increases were balanced by reductions, and the overall effect was neutral. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said what he did, because this was the beginning of rationalising telecommunications charges, and there is a good deal more to be done.
There was some criticism in the Committee of the recent increase from 3d. to 6d. in the minimum charge from public call offices where S.T.D. dialling is available. The fact is that there has been a very big loss on public call offices for many years. Last year, it was £4 million, and I do not think that the other services of the Post Office ought to carry a loss of that kind; because that is what it boils down to. If hon. Gentlemen want other services to carry the loss, they ought to tell me which services they think should carry it.
The Committee will notice that trunk calls are now cheaper. I hope that those hon. Gentlemen who demand that we should make a bigger return on capital will agree that it was right to bring kiosk income nearer cost. I hope, too, that they will not ask me to raise trunk calls to their old level again.
Several references have been made both tonight and last week to a recent Press report that telephone rentals are to be increased. How it got into the Press, I have no idea. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that these things happen, and one can investigate them until one is blue in the face but never find out how they happen.
I have since answered a Question about this, and I pointed out to my hon. Friend

the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that telephone rentals have been unchanged since 1961. I said in reply to him that we could not expect to hold them at this level for ever, and that is true. At the moment, the rental charge of £14 is commercial nonsense. When a subscriber has the phone in, he is in fact hiring a piece of complicated and expensive equipment which costs the Post Office about £120. It is not just the instrument which stands in his house. It is the cable and part of the very complicated equipment in the exchange which is for his exclusive use. We have to borrow that £120, and maintain the apparatus indefinitely. The present £14 per annum rental does not nearly cover the payment of capital, interest and maintenance, let alone the 8 per cent. which we are required to earn on our capital. Having said that, let me add that I have no immediate plan to raise the rental.
Throughout our activities, we pay the greatest attention to productivity. We make a constant and unrelenting effort to get the most out of our assets, to make the best use of manpower, and contain staff costs to the utmost. The management is fully alive to the importance of this, the staff is fully alive to it, and so are the unions. I think that tribute should be paid to the unions for the advances which have been made in recent years.
That being so, I may be asked once again why the Report and Accounts for 1965–66 reported on page 14, para. 30, that there had been some deterioration in quality of the automatic services. It is a great pity that hon. Gentlemen did not quote the preceding sentence. That says that there had been a rapid increase in traffic, and that call failures due to congestion increased, despite the provision of a great deal more plant. Although this was held against us, it underlines the need for the present Bill.
I explained the reasons at great length on Second Reading on 20th January. I now emphasise them again, in view of the objections which some hon. Members have now raised. There has been an unprecedented growth in trunk traffic. Since S.T.D. was introduced in Bristol in 1958, trunk traffic has trebled. The number of telephone connections has risen from 4½ million to almost 7 million, again since 1958. During 1966–67, inland


trunk traffic will have increased by about 10 per cent., and overseas traffic by over 15 per cent.
Because of this growth, a shortage of trunk circuits has developed, partly because manufacturers are not fully geared to produce all the equipment we need. The trunk network is being expanded at a rate which will, over the next five years, add as many trunk circuits to the system as the number now in use.
Full advantage is being taken of new techniques such as pulse coded modulation and microwave radio. In my view, pulse coded modulation and a new device, which hon. Members may not know about called TASI—time assignment and speech interpolation—which is used on cables to other countries, are two of the most hopeful developments in telecommunications because they enable valuble capital equipment to be used much more intensively. If hon. Members are interested, I should be very happy to arrange for them to go to Dollis Hill to see some of the experiments with pulse coded modulation, or, if they are interested to see TASI, I should be happy for them to go to the international telephone exchange in London to see some of the machines working. They are very impressive.
Efforts to expand the trunk network are parallel to those being made to meet the demand for new telephones. Last year, over 800,000 new subscribers were connected, and we expect to connect almost the same number this year. We are pushing ahead with a programme to convert virtually all exchanges to automatic service and S.T.D. by 1970, and we are increasing the rate of replacement of old equipment. We are developing electronic exchanges. The future is with the electronic exchange, of course. I opened the first one at Ambergate in Derbyshire in December last year.
In the expansion of the telecommunications system, we are very much in the hands of the industry. Its performance so far in the quality of equipment is as good as anything in the world, but on delivery dates it does not yet begin to match the need. However, I believe that most firms, though not all, now feel a sense of urgency in this matter and they are doing a good deal to improve delivery dates.
On the postal side, where the labour content is very much higher than on the telecommunications side, we are striving to reduce costs by increasing mechanisation and by the provision of up-to-date buildings. A start has already been made on introducing the coded address system to which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) referred. This permits letters to be sorted automatically. Over the next 10 years, we are to spend £45 million on sorting office machinery of one kind and another. As I said at Question time last week, it is estimated that by the mid-1970s this equipment will be earning a 25 per cent. return on capital. If hon. Members want a fuller picture of developments in Post Office services over the next few years, they should read the OFFICIAL REPORT for 20th January, when I dealt with them at greater length.
Irrespective of short-term fluctuations of growth due to the present state of the economy, a tremendous expansion is taking place in telecommunications which is likely to continue for many years ahead. Post Office expenditure on telephone equipment is expected to be about £65 million this year, which is almost half as much again as in 1965–66. Next year, it will be approaching twice as much again as in 1965–66, and in 1968–69 it is likely to be nearly three times as much.
We need the amounts proposed in the Bill if we are to meet the needs of the community and make our contribution to the future well being of the country. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot criticise the Post Office for failing in this or that respect to provide a good service and then seek to deny the Post Office the money which it needs to meet the demands on its services. Do hon. Members who put down the Amendments consider that the services the Post Office provides are so good that they cannot be improved? I do not think so. Many of them can be improved considerably. Do they think that people who want telephones should be denied them? I do not think so. As one of my hon. Friends has said, everybody should have a telephone ultimately. Do they think that every effort should not be made to the postal service where mechanisation is possible? Those are the things we need.

Mr. Digby: Mr. Digbyrose——

Mr. Short: It is very late, and I have not stopped any hon. Member speaking.
The mistake the Conservative Government made was to have lack of confidence in the future, resulting in under-capitalisation of the Post Office. We do not intend to repeat that mistake. We intend to modernise all the services for which the Post Office is responsible and the Post Office organisation. The biggest re-organisation ever undertaken is now under way in the Post Office.
We intend to go ahead with electronic exchanges as fast as research and development and the capacity of the industry permit, to play our part in the development of satellite communications and to improve the efficiency of the postal service by mechanisation. We do not intend in the 1970s to find ourselves again suffering as we are now from under-capitalisation.
It is the Government's considered view that the amounts proposed in the Bill are fully justified, and I recommend the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman has accused me of giving the Committee untrue facts. I have told him and the Committee that those facts were of my personal knowledge. His accusation, therefore, is that I have told a lie to the Committee. My telephone was out of order for ten days, and I am speaking from personal knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking from records, which he contends show that the telephone was repaired within three days. Some of those repairs were to cables some distance from my house, I understand from what he said. We may both be right.
The repairs may have been done in three days. All I know is that the telephone was not joined up for ten days. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that at a later date it was discovered that my telephone was joined up to another number and that that other number was joined up to my telephone? Does he deny that my wife and I had many telephone conversations with his engineer's department explaining that? Does he deny that the department admitted the fault and telephoned me and my wife to say that the wrong junc-

tion had been discovered and was being repaired? It telephoned me eventually and said, "It has now been joined up correctly and your telephone is correct".
On those facts, I have not been telling any untruth. My telephone was out of order and it was later discovered that it was joined up to a wrong junction. Will the right hon. Gentleman now withdraw his allegation against me?

Mr. Edward Short: I withdraw nothing. I did not say that the hon. Gentleman's telephone was not out of order for ten days. I said that it was repaired within three days of its being reported.

Mr. Page: Is a telephone really repaired if it is joined to the wrong number? The wire may be repaired, but the telephone is not repaired by being joined to the wrong number. I ask the right hon. Gentleman again to have the decency to withdraw his accusation.

Mr. Short: I ask the hon. Gentleman to have the decency to withdraw the accusation for which he got a great headline in the Press. His telephone was repaired and in use within three days of the fault being reported.

Mr. Page: I am sorry. It was not in use within three days and I still ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his statement that I told the Committee untrue facts. When he knows that I was speaking from personal knowledge that must be an accusation of a lie, which is an unparliamentary accusation.

Mr. Short: That is exactly the accusation that the hon. Gentleman makes against me. I withdraw nothing. His telephone was repaired within three days of his reporting it.

Mr. G. Campbell: In that case, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that if a telephone is not on the number it is supposed to be, but is on a quite different number, it is in order?

Mr. Short: Let me repeat that the hon. Gentleman's telephone was working and in order three days after he reported it.

Mr. John Wells: On what number?

The Chairman: Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12——

Mr. Page: This is a Parliamentary matter, Sir Eric, which cannot be left


as it is. The right hon. Gentleman is making an accusation which can only be an accusation of a lie, and I have asked him to withdraw it. The right hon. Gentleman still insists that I am telling the Committee an untrue fact about something which, as I say, is within my personal knowledge. He seems to be accusing me of something more than an accidental untruth, but rather a deliberate untruth.
As I understand the decencies and courtesies of this Committee, it is that one hon. Member does not accuse another hon. Member of lying in the Committee and this is what I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw. I am not asking him to withdraw what he has told the Committee from records he has received, but I am asking him to accept my personal statement of what occurred, that my telephone was joined up to some other number and not repaired in that time.

Mr. Bryan: Would it not be easier and more proper, and for the benefit of the Committee, if the Postmaster-General would undertake to go into this again without anybody committing himself?

Mr. Edward Short: I have been into it with a small toothcomb this week. I have got my facts right. I am not accusing the hon. Member of anything, but I am merely giving the facts to the House.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ridsdale: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at end insert:
Provided that no part of the Exchequer advances made to the Postmaster-General under this section and under the Post Office Act 1961. as amended by the Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Act 1964. shall be used to establish a monopoly in local sound radio stations.
I do not wish to keep the Committee at this late hour for a long time——

Mr. Edward Short: On a point of order, Sir Eric, I do not want to inhibit the hon. Member, but none of this money is required for broadcasting. I went to great pains to point this out. Supposing it was said that there should be an Amendment "except that none of it shall be used to subsidise margarine," would that be in order? It would be just as relevant.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Further to that point of order. You have called this Amendment, Sir Eric, so presumably it is bound to be in order.

The Chairman: The Amendment is in order. I have selected the Amendment and the hon. Member is entitled to move it. On the other hand, having regard to the observation of the Postmaster-General just now in reply to the previous Amendment, he may well think it unnecessary to press this Amendment, because to some extent it was dealt with. I leave that to the hon. Member.

Mr. Ridsdale: I heard what the Postmaster-General said. The only point I wish to make is that if none of the money in this Bill is for broadcasting, where is money to come from for the local sound radio stations which the Government propose to set up? I do not believe that money for the proposals the Postmaster-General has put forward to establish local sound radio broadcasting will be available from local resources, because local resources, particularly in the outlying fringe areas of the country, are under heavy pressure from higher taxes, Selective Employment Tax and higher rates. It is because I do not believe it will be possible to find the money in this way that I ask the Postmaster-General where he will find the money. I do not think that outlying areas like North-East Essex will have the kind of service which he says is possible. I put the Amendment down to elucidate information from the Postmaster-General on this point.

Mr. Digby: I hope that this point can be elucidated. I think that the Postmaster-General can do it. But I cannot accept that it is for right hon. and hon. Members to decide which Amendments are selected.
The Postmaster-General told the House a few days ago that this would not be a direct charge on the rates; it would be a charge on the rates only where it was for a specific service. He went on to say that he did not think it right that the burden of an increased licence fee should fall on rural areas which would not get the benefit of the new service. Perhaps, therefore, the Postmaster-General will clear up the point quickly for the benefit of the
House.

Mr. Edward Short: I am sure that I would be out of order to follow the point. The only point in the Amendment is whether any part of this money should be used for broadcasting. That is all that the Amendment is about. The answer is, "None of it, not one penny of it."

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — PLANT HEALTH BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clauses I to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

12.13 a.m.

Mr. John Wells: I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, to leave out subsection (3).
The purpose of the Amendment is to ascertain briefly from the learned Law Officer why it was necessary to include this provision in a consolidation Measure. If the Solicitor-General would be kind enough to refer to the debate in the Select Committee on 23rd November last when Clause 8 was considered, he would see these words by the Chairman:
There is a late Amendment"—
if it comes in late, it naturally gets off to a bad start with all lawyers and Chairmen—
which is similar to the one which we considered with regard to the Forestry Bill, and that is the one dealing with the Greater London Council.
It is a far stretch of the imagination that the Greater London Council has anything to do with any of the previous Measures which are being consolidated. The Chairman dealt with the proposed Amendment and said that he thought it was
identical with the point on the other Bill with regard to the Greater London Council".
Mr. Carter, the counsel concerned, then said:
My Lord, it is identical and I would not have thought there was any justification for it in this Bill if it had not been for the fact that it was desirable in the Forestry Bill, in as much as these two consolidations are plainly associated.
Then he went on to say:
It is inherently unlikely ever to have any effect whatever.
My point is that this is just so much lawyer's mumbo-jumbo and quite unnecessary. This was not in the original Acts. It was brought in for this Bill, and Mr. Carter, who was there to advise the Committee, said in plain language that it was so much rubbish. It is for


this reason that I wish to see subsection (3) left out.

12.15 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. When I first saw this Clause I wondered what the purpose was, but I will endeavour to explain it, although it is a matter of extreme technicality.
In many places in the Statute Book, anyone who looks will find a power which enables subordinate legislation to tidy up miscellaneous provisions in past Acts. These powers are invariably inserted in consequence of some major legislative change, such as the reorganisation of London government. The changes which are likely to be considered appropriate for the use of such a power are those which are too detailed and too numerous to be accommodated in the Statute itself.
It follows that every Act passed before the relevant date specified in the power is subject to amendment by a subordinate instrument under that power. The object of consolidation is to reproduce the whole of existing law without change of principle or of detail. The consolidation of a provision which has been subject to amendment in this way involves its taking effect in a new Act passed after the date specified in the power to amend.
Accordingly, the power to amend could, without a technical saving in the consolidating Act, be abolished. That would involve a change in the law and would represent inaccurate consolidation. In that same consolidation, the general subject matter as well as the detailed provisions consolidated are such that existing powers to amend may be treated as purely theoretical and capable of being disregarded as a matter of substance.
I give an example. If one looks at various Statutes for the coming independence of former Colonies or for creating a republic within the Commonwealth, one finds that there is a general power to amend by order the provisions of other Acts of Parliament. No one would suppose that that power would be used to alter the law in some respect which did not concern the former Colony or

the republic concerned, but theoretically, of course, it might be.
In the case of the Forestry Act—and here I come to the matter the hon. Gentleman referred to—it was observed that an exemption from compulsory purchase in the case of land belonging to the L.C.C. was not by the London Government Act, 1963, extended to the G.L.C. The Act contains just such a power as I have described. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has discovered it, but it is to be found in Section 83 and Section 84 of the Act. Both these Sections contain a power to amend Acts passed before 1965, and the power is so framed that this exemption could be restored to the G.L.C. by order and that order might, among other things, amend the definition of local authority which is contained in Section 5 of the Forestry Act, 1945.
It is not necessary to go back to that Act, because hon. Members, if they are interested, will find that Section appears in Clause 40(2)(c) of this legislation. When the Bill becomes law, Section 5 of the Forestry Act, 1945, will be Section 40 of the Forestry Act, 1967. This provision will, therefore, without such a saving as is contemplated in Section 8(3), mean that there is no power to amend the Forestry Act in such a way as was conferred by Sections 83 and 84 of the London Government Act of 1963. The necessary saving was put in the Forestry Bill for the purpose of preventing any change of the law in relation to it.
I have had to refer to the Forestry Act because the two must be looked at together. There are references in the present Forestry Bill to the other Bill which we are now considering, and the two are intended to operate together. Hon. Members should not be Confused if they understand that that has always been the intention.
I do not want to go into a lot of detail, but, in view of the close relationship between the Plant Health Bill and the Forestry Bill, it was considered advisable, as a precaution, to insert a similar saving in the Plant Health Bill in order that we should avoid any argument being founded on an apparent discrepancy in this respect between the two Bills. An Amendment would have involved a risk—I accept that it might have been only minimal—of doubt arising as to what was the existing


law. We put this in as a matter of precaution. It may not be necessary, but it can do no harm and, as a sensible precaution, it should be accepted.

Mr. John Wells: One cannot but help admiring the ingenuity of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General. Here we are discussing the Plant Health Bill, and, one should point out, a specific Clause of it, but the Solicitor-General has kept harking back to the other Bill. I know that is what they did in the Select Committee, and the hon. and learned Gentleman says the two Bills must be taken together. Yet the Plant Health Bill is, one might say, the subsidiary of the two Measures so far as the specific point goes. There can be no question here of a compulsory purchase, and the only Statutory Instrument on trees has arisen in recent years from legislation which has been consolidated. I think it was concerned with watermark disease in Hertfordshire.
I seriously suggest that all this is totally unnecessary verbiage. This Order was originally put down for consideration at a morning sitting, and I sat all through the debate last Wednesday morning anxiously hoping that we would come to it, but here we are on the following Wednesday—or rather Thursday morning —still on the same point. This is unnecessary lawyers' verbiage which took up a great deal of time in the Committee, and it is thoroughly bad practice which, I am sorry to say, is growing.
My point is that the Parliamentary draftsmen, and all the producers of mumbo-jumbo, are putting things into our legislation which mean nothing to anybody, and never will. I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman to have second thoughts. Presumably he will not take Report stage tonight. Perhaps when the Bill has a Report stage he will take a leaf out of my book and delete the subsection.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(COMMENCEMENT.)

This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and seventy.—[Mr. John Wells.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Wells: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
My purpose in moving the Clause is two-fold. If one looks at the Select Committee's Report, one finds, on page 25 of the proceedings of 23rd November, the introduction of the word "viruses". The Chairman says,
In particular, it has been thought desirable, taking that view of the definition as a whole, to introduce for clarity a special reference to 'viruses'.
Since the seven Statutes which are being repealed, or in part repealed, and thereby consolidated, were originally enacted, the whole concept of viruses has arisen. They were not known in 1877—or, if they were known to the scientists, they were not known to our predecessors in the House. If we delay the present Bill a further three years, we may well hear from the scientists of a completely new organism beyond viruses.
This is by no means a far-fetched suggestion. I draw attention to the Sunday Times of 22nd January, which dealt with a completely new type of disease, although it is an organism which has been known to the House for over 200 years, because a Bill was brought forward in the reign of George III, although it never reached the Statute Book. This organism did not have a name and has no name today. It was dealt with at length in the article. The organism has certain biological properties very different from those of viruses. It cannot be destroyed by heat or by the conventional scientific methods. It is known to be the cause of a disease in sheep called scrapie and it is presumed to be the cause of most distressing diseases in human beings of the multiple sclerosis type.
This sort of organism may be affecting plant health. No doubt it will acquire a name. A great deal of research is being done into it. It is absurd, in a consolidation Measure, to introduce a completely new concept which is by no means a matter of consolidation. It is absurd to introduce viruses, suggesting that this is a tidying up operation, when a new scientific break-through is about to hit us. There is no great advantage in the present Measure, and if we delay it a little longer this new organism could be specifically included in the new Bill when it was introduced.


The second reason I have for seeking to delay the commencement of the Bill is that I believe that the whole plant health legislation of the country is about to be shown to be completely out of date. It is essential to our horticultural industry that we should make new attempts to export. If we are to succeed with our horticultural exports—I am speaking primarily of nursery stocks—we must have a much closer liaison with the plant health inspector of other countries.
12.30 a.m.
It is absurd to bring before the Committee a mini-Measure of this sort, when we ought to be having a major plant health Measure within the next two, or at the most three years. I therefore suggest that this Measure is completely irrelevant and should be put off for three years.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) directed his observations to two points. He suggested that by introducing the term "virus" a change was being made in the law. That is seeking to go behind the findings of the Committee. It reported that it considered that the Bill was pure consolidation and represented the existing law. I would suggest that in this matter we must accept its findings.
Secondly the hon. Gentleman went on to say that there might be a great new break-through in research, and we might need to legislate again. That may be so, but it is no reason why we should not pass this consolidation Measure. I emphasise that this Bill effects no change in the substance of the law. This consolidation is useful from the point of view of everyone concerned. It is useful to the Departments who administer the legislation; it is useful to those who advise upon the law and to the public who are affected by it. Incidentally, it gets rid of three old and very ill-drawn Statutes.
As I have said before, when we consider consolidation Bills, we are not precluding any future amendment of the law. No doubt if it were intended in the immediate future, within the next few months, or before the end of the present Session, to embark upon substantial changes in the law, it would be assured

to bring in a consolidation Bill at this stage. But that is not the case, and there is no valid reason for holding up consolidation because some hon. Members think that in one respect or another the law ought to be amended, or because they think that it may be necessary to amend it, as the hon. Gentleman said, in the next two or three years.
There is one other reason for resisting the Clause. There is a very close relationship between this Bill and that which we are about to consider, the Forestry Bill. It is not essential but it is convenient that the two Bills should be passed and come into operation together. Therefore I would invite the Committee to reject the Clause.

Question put and negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Before this consolidation Measure completes its last stage through the two Houses, one should call attention to one point which arises from the long title to the Bill, which is:
An Act to consolidate the Destructive Insects and Pests Act 1877 to 1927 …
Perhaps I am too conservative, but I find it sad to say farewell to the destructive insects and pests. They are no longer mentioned as such in the Bill. We have been acquainted with them for nearly 90 years, since 1877, and now they will no longer be destructive and no longer be pests. In future they will be pests and diseases injurious. It sounds rather to have the lilt of a Gilbertian lyric all ready to be set to Sullivan's music.
During the last debate my mind was wandering a little from the speeches, with the following result:
The destructive young insects are furious,
They say that this Bill is quite spurious,
They say that it's rot and assert that they're not
Either pests or diseases injurious.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — FORESTRY BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15.—(TREES SUBJECT TO PRESERVATION ORDER UNDER PLANNING ACTS.)

12.37 a.m.

The Chairman: I call the Solicitor-General to move Amendment No. 3.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: On a point of order. Sir Eric, I am not quite clear how the Long Title of the Bill entitles us to consider an Amendment in Committee of the whole House. May I draw your attention to page 553 of Erskine May, where it says:
Where the title of the bill is to consolidate with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, amendments in Committee of the whole House are precluded by the terms of the Act (s. 1(7)).
The only Amendments which can be considered are those in the Joint Committee.
The next paragraph, on page 554, says:
Where the title of the bill is to consolidate and amend, or to consolidate with amendments, the law, amendments may be moved to the statutes which are to be considered.
The Long Title of the Bill is:
An Act to consolidate the Forestry Acts 1919 to 1963 with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949.
I cannot see anything about Amendments, and I should like your guidance.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to raise this point of order. As he said, this Bill, unlike the Plant Health Bill which we have just been discussing, is made pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, and it is therefore not merely a consolidation but a consolidation with Amendments.
In the ordinary way the passage which the hon. Member has quoted from Erskine May is quite correct, but it must be understood subject to this qualification, that if as a result of subsequent legislation certain technical Amendments are required in the Bill, then in my

opinion they can be made, and I think, as the Solicitor-General will explain, it is essential that the Amendment which he is proposing should be made.

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to you, Sir Eric. I accept that the Amendments ought to be made, because they flow from changes. All I am saying is that before they can be made, is it not necessary to have an amended Title to the Bill so that we can take an Amendment to it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think not. I have considered this point. I do not think that any Amendment to the Title of the Bill is required or would be appropriate, because the Bill is introduced under the 1949 Act.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 13, line 11, at the end to add:
(8) In this section 'the Minister', in relation to England, means the Minister of Housing and Local Government and not the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Perhaps it would be convenient also to take Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8 in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, which are all directed to the same point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that be the wish of the House. so be it.

The Solicitor-General: All five Amendments raise a very short point, which I tried to explain on Second Reading. I said that, since the Report of the Joint Committee, the House has passed the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order, 1967, by which we transferred to the Minister of Agriculture the functions of the Minister of Land. That Minister had powers in England under the various Forestry Acts which the Bill seeks to consolidate. Most of these functions were transferred to the Minister of Agriculture.
However, there are certain functions under Section 13 of the Forestry Act, 1951, connected with applications for a licence to fell trees subject to tree preservation orders under the Planning Acts. Each year until 1965, these were exercisable by the Minister of Housing, but were transferred to the Minister of Land and must now revert to the Minister of Housing. The Amendments relating to


those functions are to Clauses 15 and 19 and Schedule 3.
The only remaining Amendment is to Clause 49, which includes the functions of the Minister operative for the Bill as a whole. The sole purpose of the Amendments is to give effect to the decision of the House when it passed the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: It is strange that the Government should be moving Amendments to their own consolidation Measure. I am not sure that I like the effect of the Amendments any better. We are talking about the Forestry Commission giving licences to fell trees which are subject to tree preservation orders, and the Commission is probably best entitled to judge. Any appeal from its decision raises the question of which Minister should hear it.
If the Amendment is carried, it will be the Minister of Housing rather than the Minister of Agriculture, but the latter is surely better able to judge the merits of a case than the Minister of Housing, who has little to do with trees and their growth or the point at which they become dangerous. I am, therefore, a little surprised at the Government moving this Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: These Amendments to a Government consolidation Measure raise an important principle. I have often tried to find some way of amending such Bills and have not been successful. The Solicitor-General has undoubtedly discovered how to do this in order: I see the point and appreciate it. This was law created subsequent to the consideration of the Bill by the Joint Committee.
If I understand this set of Amendments correctly, they deal with tree preservation orders, felling directions arising out of these orders, certain land acquired by the Ministry, and the definition Clause, and it is perhaps the definition Clause which clears up the whole business.
12.45 a.m.
The Statutory Instruments concerned I believe to be about four. One is S.I. 1900 of 1951, which was entitled The Minister of Local Government and Plan-

ning (Change of Style and Title) Order, 1951. Then there was the further change by S.I. 143 of 1965, the Minister of Land and Natural Resources Order, 1965, and also the Secretary of State for Wales and Minister of Land and Natural Resources Order, 1965, S.I. 319 of 1965, and finally the Dissolution Order which the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General mentioned, whereby the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources was dissolved.
I will refrain from the temptation to raise party political issues concerning the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, an animal who is dead but won't lie down, for I should be out of order if I did so.
I would like to ask the Solicitor-General this. These Orders are, to the extent they are being embodied in this consolidation Bill, surely ripe for repeal. Ought we not to have not only the amendments in the text of the Bill which are now tabled, but also a Schedule repealing the whole or part of these Orders so that we do not have Orders still in existence when their purpose has been embodied in the Statute itself?
Frequently we do consolidate not only Acts of Parliament but Statutory Instruments as well, and it did seem to me, reading through these Amendments against the Statutory Instruments themselves, that we ought to repeal not the whole of the Statutory Instruments but certainly the paragraphs of them which now will be embodied within this consolidation Measure.
In the same way as it would be wrong to leave an Act of Parliament on the Statute Book when it has been included in a consolidation Measure, it would be wrong to leave on the Statute Book a Statutory Instrument as delegated legislation when it has been embodied in a consolidation Measure.
I would be grateful if the Solicitor-General could inform the House why he did not think it right to put down a repealing Schedule.

Sir D. Foot: I think two points have been raised. Firstly the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) put the point to me that it would have been more appropriate under Section 15 if these functions were transferred to


the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rather than to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
There are two answers to that. Firstly, these powers are reverting to where they were before. The particular functions of the Minister of Land and Natural Resources had always been exercised by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his predecessors. Secondly, we are dealing here with the Town and Country Planning Acts, and these Acts are really a matter for the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
So far as the point raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is concerned, I think the instruments to which he referred were instruments made under the Transfer of Functions Act, 1946. But in any case we are only concerned here with one single instrument, that is the instrument to which I referred, the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources Dissolution Order, 1967. It is not necessary that we should deal with anything else.
As the hon. Gentleman said, what has happened is that, since the Report of the Committee, Parliament has approved the dissolution Orders, the functions formerly exercised by the Minister of Land and Natural Resources have devolved upon other Ministers, and, therefore, if we are to make sense of this legislation, we have to give effect to that Order and amend this Bill accordingly. That is all that we have to do, and, in this connection, we do not have to have regard to any other Statutory Instruments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19.—(RESTRICTIONS ON COMMISSIONERS' POWER UNDER S. 18.)

Amendment made: In page 15. line 22, at the end to insert:
(4) In subsection (3) above 'the Minister', in relation to England, means the Minister of Housing and Local Government and not the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 to 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46.—(COMMISSIONERS' POWER TO MAKE BYELAWS.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 33, line 21, to leave out from 'be' to end of line 23, and to insert:
'subject to section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 and shall be made by statutory instrument of which a draft shall have been laid before Parliament'.
This is really the rewriting of a subsection of Clause 46. As it stands in the Bill, it reads:
Byelaws under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and a draft of a statutory instrument containing any such bye-laws shall be laid before Parliament.
In considering this, the Joint Committee had to choose between two forms of procedure for Statutory Instruments to come before the House. Its desire was to bring Statutory Instruments under this consolidation Measure within a normal procedure under the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, and the nearest procedure under that Act to that stated in the old Forestry Acts was under Section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act.
That procedure is that a draft of the Order is laid before the House, and it may be made an Order by the Minister if it is not annulled by either House of Parliament within 40 days. As it stands, the subsection does not mention anything about the possibility of the House annulling the byelaws. It is worded almost exactly the same as the normal Clause in a Bill which provides for a Statutory Instrument to be laid before Parliament and then no procedure to take place on it at all. If the intention of the draftsman of a Bill is that a Statutory Instrument shall be laid before Parliament and that there shall be no procedure on a Prayer against it, the words that he uses are
… shall be laid before Parliament.
If there is to be a Parliamentary procedure by means of a Prayer within 40 days of the Instrument or the draft being used, then normally he so states in the Clause. To draw attention to the right of any Member of the House to pray against byelaws under this subsection, the Amendment refers specifically to


Section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946. Hon. Members would then know that, when the draft was laid, there was a right to pray against it within the 40 days, and, if no one took that opportunity, the Minister would be entitled to make the Order.
As the Bill now stands, the wording gives no clue as to the procedure to be applied to these draft byelaws. In fact, it misleads by using the sort of words which are used in an Act of Parliament when it is intended that Parliament shall have no further procedure than seeing a Statutory Instrument, it being laid before Parliament, and nothing more. In many cases these words appear in Statutes. We have Statutory Instruments laid before the House but no further procedure can be taken on them. If further procedure is to be taken, it is so stated in the Clause. My Amendment would draw attention to that matter by referring the reader to Section 6(1) of the 1946 Act.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) raised this point on Second Reading. I undertook to consider it, and, having done so, I must advise the House that the Amendment is unnecessary and, I submit, undesirable.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, covers every case where a draft of a Statutory Instrument is laid before Parliament, but the Act does not prohibit the making of the Instrument without the approval of Parliament. It provides that, in the case of an Order in Council, the draft shall not be submitted to Her Majesty in Council, and in any other case the Statutory Instrument shall not be made, until after the expiration of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft is laid before each House of Parliament or, if such copies are laid on different days, beginning with the later of the two days.
During that period, either House may resolve that the draft be not submitted to Her Majesty or that the Instrument be not made. This covers every case, and it certainly covers the Clause with which we are here concerned under which the Statutory Instrument must be laid before Parliament.
On Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman said that it was general practice to insert some such words as he now proposes. I am advised that that is wrong. This matter has not been spelt out in legislation since 1946. Indeed, in every case where we have had a provision of this kind the Measure has been in this form, and it has not been thought necessary to put in specific words of the kind now proposed.
If we were to accept the Amendment, not only would we be including a provision which is quite unnecessary, but we might create a doubt as to the position under other legislation since 1946 providing for the laying of drafts before Parliament. For those reasons, I advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 47 and 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 35, line 7, leave out first 'Minister' to 'as' in line 8 and insert:
'except as provided by sections 15(8) and 19(4) and Schedule 3, means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

1.0 a.m.

Clauses 50 and 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3.—(PROCEEDINGS UNDER TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACTS IN RELATION TO TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS.)

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 41, line 21, at the end add:
4. In this Schedule 'the Minister', in relation to England, means the Minister of Housing and Local Government and not the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 6.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 47, line 33, at the end insert:
'or of Article 2 of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order 1967 (which dissolved the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources and transferred its principal functions under the said Acts to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARIES (PLYMOUTH)

Deferred proceeding resumed—

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)), put forthwith the Question,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Plymouth Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1583), dated 16th December 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd December, be annulled:—

The House divided: Ayes 65; Noes 142.

Division No. 277.]
AYES
[1.5 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Holland, Philip
Russell, Sir Ronald


Astor, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Sinclair, Sir George


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Iremonger, T. L.
Smith, John


Bessell, Peter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stodart, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Bryan, Paul
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Tapsell, Peter


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Corfield, F. V.
Kimball, Marcus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dance, James
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kirk, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Loveys, W. H.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Farr, John
Lubbock, Eric
Weatherill, Bernard


Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian
Webster, David


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Grant-Ferris, R.
Monro, Hector
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gresham Cooke, R.
More, Jasper
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hn. George


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pardoe, John



Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis
Mr. Heseltine and Mr. Mills.


Hill, J. E. B.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Archer, Peter
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Judd, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bence, Cyril
Ellis, John
Lawson, George


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bishop, E. S.
Faulds, Andrew
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Blackburn, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Lomas, Kenneth


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bradley, Tom
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McBride, Neil


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, John


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
MacColl, James


Carmichael, Neil
Forrester, John
Macdonald, A. H.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fowler, Gerry
McGuire, Michael


Coe, Denis
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Coleman, Donald
Gregory, Arnold
Mackie, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Hamling, William
Manuel, Archie


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mapp, Charles


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Marquand, David


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Hazell, Bert
Mendelson, J. J.


Dell, Edmund
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Millan, Bruce


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Dickens, James
Horner, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Dobson, Ray
Howie, W.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Doig, Peter
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Driberg, Tom
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dunn, James A.
Hynd, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dunnett, Jack
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Murray, Albert




Newens, Stan
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Vickers, Dame Joan


Norwood, Christopher
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Oakes, Gordon
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Wallace, George


Ogden, Eric
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkins, David (Consett)


O'Malley, Brian
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Oram, Albert E.
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wellbeloved, James


Orbach, Maurice
Rose, Paul
Whitaker, Ben


Orme, Stanley
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Oswald, Thomas
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Whitlock, William


Owen, Dr. David
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Palmer, Arthur
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Slater, Joseph
Winnick, David


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Small, William
Winterbottom, R. E.


Price, William (Rugby)
Tinn, James
Yates, Victor


Probert, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael



Reynolds, G. W.
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Gourlay and Mr. Harper.

Orders of the Day — LAND, DITTON PRIORS (SHROPSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay]

1.13 a.m.

Mr. Jasper More: On 10th January last, my constituent, Mr. William Radnor, who farms at Ditton Priors, Shropshire, and who for 23 years has rented from the Government a three-acre field, was doing his morning milking at first light. He suddenly, to use his own words, heard a "racket" in the lane. Going out to see what was happening, he saw a number of lorries and bulldozers, which were already beginning to move the field hedge. They cleared away about 30 feet of it. When he asked what they were doing, he was told that they were making a lorry park in the field. A large number of loads of stone were taken through the field, and two acres of it was covered with stone. In a very short time, the two acres had been made into a lorry park, while another area had been covered by a large tent. What remained of the field had been completely churned up so that, in Mr. Radnor's words, the whole field was of no use to either man or beast.
Mr. Radnor's tenancy was a grazing tenancy with a rent payable monthly in advance, and I understand that the rent for January had been paid. The tenancy included a provision that the Government might resume possession in emergency, but no warning of any kind had been given to Mr. Radnor. It soon became apparent what was happening. His field, plus a large adjoining area which had once been the Admiralty Ditton Priors Depot, was taken over by United States military personnel as an

ammunition depot. That is still the position today.
The first thing that needs to be said is that no conceivable blame has been laid on the U.S. Forces. Everything that I am challenging was done, and I think admittedly done, by our own Ministry of Defence. The American troops have been shown a welcome in South Shropshire, and I want to take this opportunity of making it clear to them that, whatever I may have to say about our own Government, the Americans are guiltless in this matter, and that while they are with us I shall be only too anxious, both as their neighbour and as M.P. for the constituency, to do all I can to help them.
The second thing that needs to be said is that this is not a witch hunt after a particular Minister or even a particular Government. We in South Shropshire have lived so long with Ditton Priors that we have long since ceased to blame any particular Government or particular Minister. What we wish to criticise and have exposed and reformed is the whole system, or lack of system, of the whole administration, or lack of administration, in the Ministry of Defence under which such things can happen.
Mr. Radnor's experience is only the small tip of the iceberg of everything that has happened at Ditton Priors. To look at this case, it is hard to believe. If one is conducting a high powered, high speed operation to make a lorry park in a remote part of Shropshire, a fair amount of preparation and organisation is involved. Plans have to be made, contractors approached, estimates asked for, stocks of suitable stone identified and lorries and bulldozers collected.


Is it conceivable that in any properly conducted Ministry, with all these preparations in train, no one should have thought of asking the permission or even of informing the farmer on whose field all this apparatus was to descend? For it was not the case that the Defence Ministry were in any way out of touch. On the contrary, for months if not for years past their officials had been in negotiation with a number of my constituents for the sale to them of various areas of the depot. The negotiations were complicated, in some cases expensive and, as I shall show, long drawn out. They were also, in a number of separate cases, in an advanced state on the date I have mentioned, 10th January.
The local council, the Bridgnorth Rural District Council, was in negotiation for the sale of the former depot sewage works. The sale would have been long since completed but for the dilatory conduct of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, whose duty it was to fix the price. In the event, the negotiations were abruptly terminated.
My constituent Mrs. Morton, of Newton Hall Farm, was negotiating to buy back 20 acres which had originally formed part of her farm. These negotiations were also terminated. My constituent Messrs. Tom and Brian Colebatch, of Birches Farm, were negotiating for 20 or 30 acres. In their case, also, the negotiations came to an end.
In the case of yet another constituent, the negotiations were terminated by the Chief Surveyor of Defence Lands in a letter dated—I ask the House to note the date—12th January. This was in spite of the fact that, on 4th January, a meeting had been arranged with the district valuer for 17th January in order to finalise the price.
In yet another case, my constituent Mrs. Cains had 230 acres of her farm compulsorily purchased in 1942—and in a way I think that this is the most diseraceful case. The land had been offered back to her and then before the events I have related she was informed that the land would be put up to public auction. Mrs. Cains naturally asked what was being planned for her land, and other cases of the same kind have arisen in regard to the railway by which this depot was served.
A number of my constituents have tried for months, and in some cases for years, to get satisfactory answers from the Minister's Lands Branch in the matter of what land had been sold and at what price. It seemed impossible to make any progress, and it is hard to believe that this Admiralty depot was closed as long ago as 1963. As long ago as July 1965, I was informed that there was no Government requirement for the land and that it would be sold. The conclusion must be that if there had been any elementary efficiency in the Ministry, the land would have been re-transferred to the previous owners, and all this trouble would have been avoided. That is one conclusion to which one must come, and another conclusion is that there must have been no proper "chain" of responsibility in the Ministry. The Minister who has come here tonight—and I want to thank him for coming at such short notice and at such an hour—has already apologised to me and, I think, to one of my constituents. I express the hope that, if he has not done so, he will apologise individually to all of them.
Apart from apologising, the Minister will no doubt be saying shortly that he takes the responsibility for this, but I cannot even then accept that this would be an end to the matter. What has happened here could not have happened if there has been proper organisation at official level. What has happened here could not have happened if every official had been properly informed and had exercised quite elementary judgment. What has happened here could not have happened if the Ministers concerned had been properly informed and had been properly in control of their Departments.
These are three separate charges, and they must be investigated. If the fault was identifiable as that of particular officials, the public should know what has happened to them. If it was simply because of major official bumbledom and muddle, then the public should know what reorganisation has taken place and what new instructions have been issued. If, which I am reluctant to believe, this was a Ministerial decision taken in defiance of official advice, then there are precedents as to the course which the Minister should take.


I do not like the phrase in one official letter signed by an official of the Minister's that "the decision was taken on the authority of Ministers". Clearly, what is neeeded is an inquiry, and if this could be made public—I suggest it should first be in the form of a departmental inquiry —and made together with a statement of the new arrangements made, this could possibly be sufficient. Much more satisfactory would surely be a public inquiry as was held in the Crichel Down case twelve years ago.
I ask the Minister for an undertaking that one or other course will be taken to clear up this disgraceful case.

1.25 a.m.

The Minister of Defence (Administration) (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): I was approached about five o'clock or thereabouts this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) who told me that he was going to raise a case of inconvenience caused to some of his constituents by the disposal of the depot at Ditton Priors. I want to make it quite clear that I accept the responsibility for any inconvenience which has been caused. I have admitted that inconvenience has been caused to some of his constituents because of the sudden requirement—I emphasise that it was a very sudden requirement—to bring this depot back into use for ammunition storage for American forces.
The hon. Member spoke of "a rather ominous phrase" in an official letter to the effect that the matter had been before Ministers. I do not find this ominous. The American requirement, which covered not only the use of Ditton Priors but that of a number of other establishments too. most certainly was before Ministers, and properly so. It covered a number of establishments for a number of different purposes which the Americans put to us at short notice, and Ministers were involved in trying to find a way of providing such facilities as we could to assist the American forces in the difficulties which they experienced at that time.
In answer to a Question by the hon. Member on 1st February, 1967, I apologised for any inconvenience which had been caused to his constituents. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for

the Air Force wrote to him on 25th January apologising for the inconvenience which had been caused to his constituents and to the hon. Member himself in other matters which were dealt with in this letter. By chance—and there is no connection with the Question—I was visiting military units in the area not very far from Ditton Priors on Friday, 3rd February. This matter being in the news because of statements made by the hon. Member to local newspapers and because of the general interest in the matter in the area, I was interviewed by B.B.C. television, West Midlands Regional News, and I took the opportunity once again in the course of that interview publicly to apologise to everybody who had been inconvenienced in any way by the sudden need to stop the disposal proceedings of this depot and to bring it back into use for the American forces.
The hon. Member mentioned Crichel Down. I am sure that he well knows that there is no connection whatever between what happened in Crichel Down and the sudden, necessary decision by the Government to bring negotiations, which had been going on for some time, as I willingly admit, for the disposal of this land back to the former owners concerned, in some cases—not all cases—to a halt. There have been a number of emotive articles in the Press making a comparison with Crichel Down, but if those who wrote the articles would look at the two cases they would quickly find that they have made a serious mistake and that there is no relationship between the two.

Mr. More: I do not want to argue the point, but I must make it clear that I can in no way accept what, the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Reynolds: Crichel Down was a question of selling a piece of land not to the former owner but to somebody else. In this case negotiations were taking place with the former owners to sell them back their land, as well as some additional areas in several cases. This new Government requirement arose and the sale was terminated before it had been concluded.
I have done as much as I can do in offering my personal apologies and those of my right hon. Friend to those whom


I willingly admit have been inconvenienced because of what happened. The hon. Member mentioned the sudden appearance in a field of vehicles carrying out work, turning it into a vehicle park. That incident was the subject of a personal apology from the area land agent to the farmer on the day following the incident. This was a very urgent and very sudden requirement. We wanted to do our best to meet the request put to us by the American forces to give them this storage space. We had little time to reach a decision. I admit that we slipped in that after the decision had been reached, arrangements were still going on in another branch of the Government—I accept responsibility—for negotiations with one of the former owners concerned to try to fix the price which he should pay for the land which he was entitled to purchase back and for an additional area which we were negotiating to sell to him.
I once again apologise to everyone who has been inconvenienced, but I must point out that a writ has been issued against the Ministry of Defence by one of the former owners concerned. A large part of the argument on this writ depends on dates, some of which the hon. Member has mentioned, and how far certain processes had gone with that former owner by certain dates. In the circumstances it would be most unwise of me to comment on many aspects of what the hon. Member said. The mistakes that have been made, and there were one or two, have only been, in my view, a question of not informing at the appropriate time individuals affected by the decision which had to be made very quickly.
I do not think that there is any case whatever for accepting what the hon. Gentleman has said about making inquiries of any kind in this matter. I would be only too willing to discuss this with him, once the legal action has either

gone through the courts, or been withdrawn in any way. In view of the fact that a writ has been issued, I would not at this stage be prepared to discuss this particular course of action. Once that has been settled, if the hon. Gentleman can find some way of raising it again with me, either in correspondence or on the Floor of the House, I would be pleased to deal in detail with the points that he has in mind.
All that I can do at this stage is to repeat the apologies I have made on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself on several occasions for the inconvenience which has undoubtedly been caused to a number of individuals. I am sorry that it has happened, but, in the circumstances, most of what happened could not be avoided. So far as an inquiry is concerned——

Mr. More: Mr. Morerose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak, but he can ask a question before the Minister sits down.

Mr. More: Before the Minister sits down, I would like to ask him to reply to a demand I made that there should be an inquiry, either departmentally or a public inquiry, about the maladministration.

Mr. Reynolds: I have inquired into what happened in this case, and as a result of that inquiry I have admitted that there was a very short delay between the actual decision being taken that we could not proceed with the resale of the land, because it was still required for Government purposes, and the informing of the owners. I apologise for the mistake.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Two o'clock a.m.